Big turnout in Iraq

[peppery]

We know why the turnout was so high and the there was acceptance of the constitution don't we? The sooner these things are done the sooner the US can clear out of Iraq, and thats what the shia want. Then they can cosy up to their new best friends in Iran. Oh the irony of it all. The US boots outSaddam only to see him replaced by the ayatollahs in Tehran. Ya gotta laugh.

 

[mears]

BBC




Yes. Absolutely first class.

That doesn't mean the Iraqi people or Arabs can't live in a democracy.

And if it was for the likes of you Saddam Hussein would be in power and sanctions would be dropped. Circa 1970's or 80's.

Please don't try to take the moral high ground

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Please don't try to take the moral high ground

Why not? Is the moral high ground reserved for US war criminals?

 

[mears]

We know why the turnout was so high and the there was acceptance of the constitution don't we? The sooner these things are done the sooner the US can clear out of Iraq, and thats what the shia want. Then they can cosy up to their new best friends in Iran. Oh the irony of it all. The US boots outSaddam only to see him replaced by the ayatollahs in Tehran. Ya gotta laugh.

But if the people of Iraq can vote in Shia's loyal to Tehran, maybe the Iranians would want that same luxury, voting, Instead of being ruled by a bunch of unelected old men.

 

[peppery]

And if it was for the likes of you Saddam Hussein would be in power and sanctions would be dropped. Circa 1970's or 80's.

Please don't try to take the moral high ground

Didn't your country help Iraq out industrially circa 1970's or 80's at about the time he was conducting a war against Iran and killing his own people?

 

[peppery]

But if the people of Iraq can vote in Shia's loyal to Tehran, maybe the Iranians would want that same luxury, voting, Instead of being ruled by a bunch of unelected old men.

Were talking about Iraq here not Iran. Are you happy with the New government getting so close to Iran?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

But if the people of Iraq can vote in Shia's loyal to Tehran, maybe the Iranians would want that same luxury, voting, Instead of being ruled by a bunch of unelected old men.

So are you claiming that a fundamentalist pro-Iranian result in Iraq is a big success for Bush's policies?

 

[mears]

Why not? Is the moral high ground reserved for US war criminals?

You can call anyone a war criminal. You are just throwing around slogans.

Cut and pasting is more your speed.

 

[mears]

Didn't your country help Iraq out industrially circa 1970's or 80's at about the time he was conducting a war against Iran and killing his own people?

Yes, but not nearly as much as the Europeans, including the French. And Remember the first gulf war was fought by Iraq with mostly Russian machinery.

And if the sanctions were lifted and Saddam was in power it could very much look like the 70' and 80's in Iraq.

If you people were running things you would have got rid of the UN sanctions and not invaded.

No moral high ground for you boys.

 

[mears]

Were talking about Iraq here not Iran. Are you happy with the New government getting so close to Iran?

You ask me a question about Iraq and Iran and don't want me to talk about Iran?

God help us...

 

[mears]

So are you claiming that a fundamentalist pro-Iranian result in Iraq is a big success for Bush's policies?

I'm claming that such a regime is fine as long its the will of the majority of the Iraqi people. If it doesn't work they can throw the pricks out in the next election.

But thats the trick. There must be further elections in the future

Nothing holds politicians accountable like elections. Checks and balances must be implemented to curb mans natural inclination to accumulate power and hold onto it.

Europe learned after WWII, we know it in North America. Otherwise you get the dictatorships and bad government inclicting places like the ME and Africa.

There is no way around it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You can call anyone a war criminal. You are just throwing around slogans.

Cut and pasting is more your speed.

Well, under international law as I understand it, if your military mistreats prisoners, blows up hospitals on purpose, shoots ambulance drivers or deliberately starves out or deprives of water civilian populations (all of which crimes have been documented as happening in Iraq, for example in the attack on Fallujah), then they have committed war crimes and so have the leaders who approved of their actions.

Invading a country without justification under international law is a "crime against humanity", under the relevant legislation, rather than a war crime per se. The only defence that the US/UK governments could claim is that they were in immediate danger of attack, which they did claim at the time, but which has since been shown to be a pack of big fat stinking deliberate lies.

Torturing prisoners is also classed as a crime against humanity, if they are civilians, but as a war crime if they are combatants, as far as I understand.

Either way, the US/UK is guilty.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

In case you've forgotten, here's a link to pictures of US servicemen and women committing crimes.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

What might lead us to describe Mr. Rumsfeld or some other "senior civilian or military official" as "ordering or authorizing or permitting" torture or violation of international treaties and U.S. law? We could start with Mr. Rumsfeld's own admission during the same news conference that he had personally approved the detention of several prisoners in Iraq without registering them with the International Committee of the Red Cross. This creation of "ghost prisoners" was described by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who investigated abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, as "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine and in violation of international law." Failure to promptly register detainees with the Red Cross is an unambiguous breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Mr. Rumsfeld said that he approved such action on several occasions, at the request of another senior official, CIA Director George J. Tenet.

Did senior officials order torture? We know of two relevant cases so far. One was Mr. Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of the use of techniques including hooding, nudity, stress positions, "fear of dogs" and physical contact with prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay base. A second was the distribution in September 2003 by the office of the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, of an interrogation policy that included these techniques as well as others, among them sleep and dietary manipulation. In both cases lawyers inside the military objected that the policies would lead to violations of international law, including the convention banning torture. Both were eventually modified, but not before they were used for the handling of prisoners. In the case of the Abu Ghraib prison, the policy apparently remained in effect for months.

Did senior officials "permit" torture? A Pentagon-led task force concluded in March 2003, with the support of the Justice Department, that the president was authorized to order torture as part of his war-making powers and that those who followed his orders could be immunized from punishment. Dictators who wish to justify torture, and those who would mistreat Americans, have no need to read our editorials: They can download from the Internet the 50-page legal brief issued by Mr. Rumsfeld's chief counsel.

source

Is it any surprise that the Sunni population of Iraq is in open revolt and that the Shia population, are eagerly (see e.g. that KR article I linked) looking forward to turning on the US forces and kicking them out of their country?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Meanwhile, back at the Iraq referendum.

Condi Rice and Jack Straw are all over the papers this morning calling the referendum a big success, saying it passed and telling the world to rejoice.

The Guardian reckons that two Sunni provinces voted 2/3 against, one short of stopping the constitution from being passed. source

Meanwhile Al Jazeera, who I suspect might have better access in the Sunni areas than the Guardian, seem to be just talking about turnout and not trying to call the result yet (at the time of this post anyhow) source

There have already been stories, I quoted a couple of them earlier on this thread and here's another source suggesting that significant numbers of Sunnis were unable to vote for one reason or another.

Assuming any result like the one the Guardian is predicting, that almost inevitably means that a significant proportion of Iraqis are going to believe that the fix was in, to insure that the constitutional referendum was passed.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I have much to say. Innocent Iraqi civilians are being targeted by Sunni and Religious fanatics in hopes of sparking civil war in Iraq.

Its the only hope they have. They don't have any blueprint but misery for the future.

Much to say? You barely have anything to say about the plight of Iraqis other than pickling up on the occasional 'good news' story. Mind you, being as wrong as you've been, I'd beshamed into silence too. Besides, who made this 'blueprint of misery' - oh let me guess, its not really the US and UK's fault is it? Hearts, minds and garlands of flowers...............

 

[nino_savatte]

You can call anyone a war criminal. You are just throwing around slogans.

Cut and pasting is more your speed.

That's cheap, even for you mears. I have noticed something with you: when someone debunks your arguments with logic, you get nasty. In my case you claim to 'ignore' me or have referred to me as "angry" because I demolished all your 'arguments' and you find that difficult to handle. Yet here you are chucking out vitriol because Bernie's smashed your feeble argument to pieces. You're a real joke, pal.

 

[Barking_Mad]

All Mears cares about is waving the US flag from the end of his dick and claiming Iraq is a success whilst ignoring all the facts which suit his post at the time. Look at this as an example. He's had little to say about Iraq, about what's going on in the country, about how hard it is for Iraqis and how dangerous a place it is. Yet the constitution turns up and all of a sudden he's claiming a success.

Like you said Nino, its cheap, very cheap.

 

[nino_savatte]

All Mears cares about is waving the US flag from the end of his dick and claiming Iraq is a success whilst ignoring all the facts which suit his post at the time. Look at this as an example. He's had little to say about Iraq, about what's going on in the country, about how hard it is for Iraqis and how dangerous a place it is. Yet the constitution turns up and all of a sudden he's claiming a success.

Like you said Nino, its cheap, very cheap.

That's right: because there is a constitution [that has been forced on Iraqi people by the US] that means everything is hunky dory and mears and his pals can get on with fattening themselves even more.

 

[Streathamite]

But if the people of Iraq can vote in Shia's loyal to Tehran, maybe the Iranians would want that same luxury, voting, Instead of being ruled by a bunch of unelected old men.

they already have that luxury. You do know they've just elected a president?

 

[oi2002]

But if the people of Iraq can vote in Shia's loyal to Tehran, maybe the Iranians would want that same luxury, voting, Instead of being ruled by a bunch of unelected old men.

It's not impossible that Iran will slowly get more democratic; it was headed that way before Dubya added them to the axis of evil. The population has lurched dangerously to the right under the aggressive (and possibly crazy) new government but that's mainly a result of the M1A's being on their border. That threat is fading and Iran will at worst aquire a friendly and like minded neighbour reliant on them for long term security.

Since Al Sistani strong-armed DC into the January elections that bunch of old men have shown nothing but enthusiasm for Iraq's purple fingered revolution. They predict a 'bright future with peace and stability' for Iraq.

Call me cynical but I suspect their enthisiasm may be entirely related to the Basra oil field and 80% of Iraq's oil being within their grasp. That in turn means a rich expansionist Iran backed by China and firmly in the grasp of the Mullahs eager to spread this sort of freedom to the oppressed Shi'a of Saudi who live above mega oil fields as well.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Iraq result delay over fraud fear

Indications suggest the referendum may have been approved. Iraqi election officials say the formal result of the country's vote on a new constitution will be delayed, amid accusations of fraud.
Officials said turnout from some areas seemed abnormally high and ballots needed to be double-checked. Some Sunni Arab politicians have alleged that corrupt practices were allowed to boost the Yes vote.

However monitors from the United Nations said the vote went well and that most people had been able to vote. The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq said it needed several more days to complete the count "after finding that the figures from most provinces were too high".

I bet that the "fraud won't have affected the overall outcome of the ballot" and therefore it will be ignored and the media will let it slide like it has done in the previous election and like the fraud ridden ballots in Afghanistan.

 

[Jangla]

How exactly did the US lean on them? Do you have any evidence that the US intervened in the drafting of the constiution in the way you are claiming? Or have you just made this all up?

Bremner illegally changed the country's trading laws at the start of the invasion allowing the US to siphon off millions in Iraqi money - the constitution is essentially an extension of this.

 

[Barking_Mad]

There seems little doubt that there was wide scale fraud in both the January elections and on the vote on the referendum. Just to set the tone here's an article about the rigging of the January elections.

Stuffing Iraq's ballot boxes

....According to an account provided by the US liaison with the local election commission, supported by physical evidence collected by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI), Kurdish officials in Nineveh province tried to carry out just such a ballot-stuffing scheme in last January's election.

The Sunni Arab majority of about 1.7 million in Nineveh - including Sunni insurgent organizations - appears to be united behind a "no" vote on the constitution. Kurds number only about 200,000 and non-Kurdish, non-Arab minorities another 500,000 to 600,000. The non-Arab, non-Kurdish minorities - Assyrian Christians, Shabaks, Yezidis and Turkmen - which hold the balance in the province, are overwhelmingly opposed to the constitution.

Heavy-handed control by the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) of non-Kurdish towns, exercised through Kurdish militia and intelligence presence in non-Kurdish areas, has alienated all four groups. They fear the draft constitution would legitimize Kurdish plans to absorb into Kurdistan the areas of Nineveh where they are the majority, eliminating the limited recognition of status and rights as minorities they now have.

In the January election, the Kurds dealt with the problem of being a relatively small minority in the province by stuffing the ballot boxes, as recounted by Major Anthony Cruz, an US Army reserve civil affairs officer assigned to work with the province's electoral commission.

Cruz, now back in Los Angeles, provided a detailed account of the election in Nineveh to IPS in interviews.

...........

On election day, Cruz recalled, the US military tried to find helicopters to carry the ballot materials out to the six remaining district towns on the list, but was able get ballots before the 5pm close of voting to only one town, Bashiqa, which is almost entirely Christian, Shabak and Yezidi. But according to Cruz, Kurdish militiamen stole the ballot boxes from the polling place, returning them later after obviously tampering with them and offering bribes to the election workers to accept them.

Meanwhile, a much more ambitious vote-fraud scheme was unfolding in Sinjar, a relatively small district town in the west known to be a predominantly Sunni Arab area.

About 12,000 ballots had been sent to Sinjar, but on election day KDP officials in Sinjar requested a number of ballots far in excess of the estimated electorate in the town and surrounding villages, according to Cruz. He recalled that the request was supported by the office of the interim president of Iraq, Sunni Arab Ghazi al-Yawer.

Cruz remembers joking about the "500% voter-participation rate" in Sinjar. Nevertheless, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team complied with the request for the ballots.

Later, the province's Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) forwarded 38 ballot boxes, 174 plastic sacks and 14 cardboard cartons of ballots that had obviously been tampered with to the national IECI. In some boxes, reams of ballot papers that had not even been folded were visible. In others, boxes had been resealed with red and green duct tape.

When Cruz asked the local IECI director how many of the fraudulent ballots had come from Sinjar, he was told, "all of them".

The BBC ignored the January cries of fraud (nothing shows up on their website) but they have made a token effort with the latest series of accusations.....

Iraqi election officials say the formal result of the country's vote on a new constitution will be delayed, amid accusations of fraud. Officials said turnout from some areas seemed abnormally high and ballots needed to be double-checked.

Some Sunni Arab politicians have alleged that corrupt practices were allowed to boost the Yes vote. However monitors from the United Nations said the vote went well and that most people had been able to vote. The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq said it needed several more days to complete the count "after finding that the figures from most provinces were too high".

Is this the same UN who admited to not having enough people on the ground during the January elections to check that voting was fair? The same media who barely questioned the legitimacy of the vote, nor even bothered to look into accusations of fraud?

 

[mears]

This is much better than the sham election where Saddam won 99 percent of the vote. The Iraqis are auditing the vote, and taking days to determine the outcome. Democracy is sometimes messy and the Iraqis are taking their time to determine the outcome.

 

[newharper]

This is much better than the sham election where Saddam won 99 percent of the vote. The Iraqis are auditing the vote, and taking days to determine the outcome. Democracy is sometimes messy and the Iraqis are taking their time to determine the outcome.

"The incompetence of the U.S. government’s policy in Iraq was demonstrated by this weekend’s referendum on the Iraqi Constitution. The Constitution, written by the Shi’a and Kurds, has passed, over the objections of many Sunnis. Yet it symbolizes one of the U.S. government’s biggest errors in Iraq: confusing democracy with liberty.

"Curiously, the United States has forgotten the wisdom of its own founders, who were more concerned with liberty than democracy. In fact, many of them regarded democracy as “mob rule.” They realized that a majority, through an election, could gain control of government power and impose tyranny on a minority. They wisely limited the jurisdiction of government, created competing branches to diffuse governmental power, and created a bill of rights so that government could not usurp the liberties of the minority. Unfortunately, over the course of U.S. history, the American public, media, and politicians have become enamored with democracy at the expense of liberty. "

For the rest of us, it raises problems with Syria.

'and the United States seems likely to continue to adopt policies that will make the situation in Iraq worse. For example, a congressional source informs me that Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, the chairman and ranking minority member of the House International Affairs Committee, will surreptitiously attempt to impose further economic sanctions on Syria.'

'Unfortunately, the founders’ enlightened policies that treasured liberty and presumed friendly relations with all nations are long gone. Instead, the United States is now tragically faced with a downward spiral into an Iraqi civil war.'

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1018-20.htm

Face it mears, not only are you fucked in Iraq, you are only starting to come to terms with the fact that 'you' have completely blown any claim to the moral high ground. The Chinese and Iranians rightly laugh in your face, and the Zimbabweans think you're moving in on their moral patch.

 

[Barking_Mad]

This is much better than the sham election where Saddam won 99 percent of the vote. The Iraqis are auditing the vote, and taking days to determine the outcome. Democracy is sometimes messy and the Iraqis are taking their time to determine the outcome.

Jesus are you Bush's speech writer? You do realise that a fraudulent election leads to fraudulent leaders dont you? I mean how can you trust a leader who has cheated his way into office? Oh hold on, you already do!

 

[nino_savatte]

This is much better than the sham election where Saddam won 99 percent of the vote. The Iraqis are auditing the vote, and taking days to determine the outcome. Democracy is sometimes messy and the Iraqis are taking their time to determine the outcome.

It's electoral fraud (the kind that you're used to in the States, so you would see the outcome as favourable given the fact that folk like you don't understand anything but the criminal). I've noticed that you are also repeating the Rumsfeld line "Democracy is sometimes messy", which proves my point that you are not human at all but, rather, a virus program.

 

[mears]

Jesus are you Bush's speech writer? You do realise that a fraudulent election leads to fraudulent leaders dont you? I mean how can you trust a leader who has cheated his way into office? Oh hold on, you already do!

Now its a fradulent election. Why not wait to see how this plays out. The powers that be in Iraq are not calling it a victory for the constitution. They are auditing the vote. You are trying to call the results before the game is over.

 

[nino_savatte]

Now its a fradulent election. Why not wait to see how this plays out. The powers that be in Iraq are not calling it a victory for the constitution. They are auditing the vote. You are trying to call the results before the game is over.

LOL!!!!!!! Very funny indeed. Tell me something mears, for someone who has trouble understanding why we take an interest in the US and other countries, why are you so interested in Iraq? Is that not a case of you being - dare I say it - hypocritical? Of course it is.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

This is much better than the sham election where Saddam won 99 percent of the vote. The Iraqis are auditing the vote, and taking days to determine the outcome. Democracy is sometimes messy and the Iraqis are taking their time to determine the outcome.

I think in the current circumstances and with your government and turnout you are in no position to speak of sham elections.

If there was a situation in the Middle East or elsewhere where the manufacturers of electoral teller machines was connected to one of the candidates you'd be jumping up and down shouting about how unfair and abusive such a thing is.

Try taking the plank from your own eye before complaining about the speck in someone elses.

Also as a previous poster said removing the US flag from your japseye might help as well.