Has true democracy been achived in Iraq?

[Citizen66]

So you are implying (although you can't actually bring yourself to say it for some reason) that the 2005 elections didn't include candidates that were pro Iran?

This is a strange claim as the United Iraqi Alliance won 41% of the vote (the highest amount of any of the lists). The two largest parties within the UIA are the Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, both of which have strong links with Iran.

Just to play along with you for a second:

"The US government would not waste billions of dollars introducing 'democracy' to Iraq in order to make Iran stronger in the region. Would you agree with this, yes or no?" I'd say that the answer is that they have made Iran stronger.

What do you think? Or do you only make posts containing convoluted questions?

Before I bother with a long-winded response that you'll probably ignore and counter with 'statistics'...

Do you have any idea why:

a) America put Saddam in power through a CIA sponsored coup?
b) Iraq went to war with Iran and who was pulling the strings?
c) America subsequently removed Saddam from power using the military and executed him?

Once we've covered the basics then we'll have a foundation for the debate you want regarding democracy in the region. Take your time.

 

[_float_]

Before I bother with a long-winded response...

Do you have any idea why:

a) America put Saddam in power through a CIA sponsored coup?
b) why Iraq went to war with Iran and who was pulling the strings?
c) why America subsequently removed Saddam from power using the military and executed him?

Once we've covered the basics then we'll have a foundation for the debate you want regarding democracy in the region. Take your time.

No I have absolutely no idea. Please tell me.

edit: ps including the bit where you tell me about the 2005 election candidates. thanks.

 

[david dissadent]

a) America put Saddam in power through a CIA sponsored coup?

Hmmmm The Baathist coup did not put Saddam in power, it placed al Bakr and the Ba'athi in power, they were third worldest who and pro pan Arabists, hardly americas best friends. They still bought the bulk of the weapons in the 70s from the Soviets.

Saddam climbed to the top of the Baathists and eased himself into power. CIA involvment in the coup is rumoured but Ive not seen anything definite. Also I dont see why the CIAs involvement would have been decisive in the coup if they were involved.

 

[david dissadent]

You're right.

I found something from last month.

Big oil must start work fast in Iraq or lose deals
ISTANBUL, Feb 14 (Reuters)



...



32 firms can bid. It's unclear who they are though.

The deals often given to weak third world government is that the IOCs get too recover the cost of establishing the project before the local government gets a cut in the revenue. I dont know how these will work and how exploitative they will be. For Iraqs mature fields though I think that the internationals are kind off needed (not saying this for new fields) as even Russia struggled to produce secondary and tertiary recovery technology (see the death of Smolotor field as an example). Only Saudi ARAMCO seems to have mastered the technologies (according to Simmons) although just about anyone can get a water drive going..... You can see how the introduction of big western technollogy lifted FSU oil recovery here

http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/?action=view&current=russiak.gif

But worth pointing out that fields using these technologies tend to hit a cliff big style (see Cantrell as an example.)

Basicaly Im not sure how exploitative these deals will be, when the details appear Im sure they will be picked over by the geeks on the oil drum and po.com.

 

[Citizen66]

No I have absolutely no idea. Please tell me.

No. Do some basic fucking research and then you may begin to understand all that I'm saying that appears to be confusing you.

Hmmmm The Baathist coup did not put Saddam in power, it placed al Bakr and the Ba'athi in power, they were third worldest who and pro pan Arabists, hardly americas best friends. They still bought the bulk of the weapons in the 70s from the Soviets.

Saddam climbed to the top of the Baathists and eased himself into power. CIA involvment in the coup is rumoured but Ive not seen anything definite. Also I dont see why the CIAs involvement would have been decisive in the coup if they were involved.

Yes, I'm aware that it was the party as opposed to Saddam that the CIA 'helped' into power but I wanted to keep the questions to a minimum level for simple boy. The basic premise of that question is true, however. And I certainly wouldn't say Saddam 'eased' himself into power, by any accounts!

Or name many major political shifts in the last 50 years that the US hasn't had their noses stuck in to...

 

[david dissadent]

I'm aware that it was the party as opposed to Saddam that the CIA 'helped' into power

So the CIA did not place Saddam in power. Incidently do you have any primary source evidence to the scale of CIA involvement?

 

[EddyBlack]

Obama said he was going to withdraw from Iraq during the election, but he forgot to add that it wouldn't be until 2011 as the timetable now is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7914061.stm

I think Obama is just as militaristic as the last president.

 

[_float_]

No. Do some basic fucking research and then you may begin to understand all that I'm saying that is confusing you.

You have asked me three questions which you claim form the basis for the debate about democracy in Iraq. I am guessing that you see Saddam as a US puppet, who was replaced by another US puppet post-invasion.

Cut to the chase and admit that you are going to end up saying that the current Iraqi government doesn't really have any links to Iran and/or that no pro-Iranian candidates were allowed to stand in Iraqi elections.

Which is weird because the political party "Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq" holds the largest number of seats in the Iraqi parliament.

I don't think any amount of research will help me know what you actually think, because unless you actually say there is no way I can find out.

 

[Citizen66]

So the CIA did not place Saddam in power. Incidently do you have any primary source evidence to the scale of CIA involvement?

What level of sources are you seeking here? Released files and the such?

 

[Citizen66]

You have asked me three questions which you claim form the basis for the debate about democracy in Iraq. I am guessing that you see Saddam as a US puppet, who was replaced by another US puppet post-invasion.

Cut to the chase and admit that you are going to end up saying that the current Iraqi government doesn't really have any links to Iran and/or that no pro-Iranian candidates were allowed to stand in Iraqi elections.

Which is weird because the political party "Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq" holds the largest number of seats in the Iraqi parliament.

I don't think any amount of research will help me know what you actually think, because unless you actually say there is no way I can find out.

Have you answered the questions yet? I got bored with answering yours. Complete mine and I'll get back to you.

 

[_float_]

Have you answered the questions yet? I got bored with answering yours. Complete mine and I'll get back to you.

You haven't answered my question. I have only got one question and you have refused to answer it about ten times now. You supposedly started this thread to answer it.

Where there any pro-Iran candidates in the 2005 election?

(hint: the answer is *yes* - in fact they won the election)

You seem to be implying that this is impossible because America would not allow it.

Which seems to imply that you think that the current Iraq government is not made up of pro-Iran parties.

Therefore you need to explain why every source I have read says that the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Islamic Dawa Party and the Sadr block are close to Iran (therefore most of the United Iraqi Alliance generally).

You think they are American stooges? So where is your evidence?

No, I won't write an essay for you on a list of questions you set to try and earn the right to get you to reply - that is not how debate works. Nor does it work by calling people "stupid boy".

If you simply refuse to debate then so be it - people can see that you have no reply and make their own mind up. Don't pretend that I am required to answer a list of irrelevant questions before you need to reply.

 

[Citizen66]

As I said before, America don't want Iran to be stronger in the region than they already are. Neither do Israel. Iraq is occupied so whatever government is formed there under the present conditions is doing so with a gun held to their head. There, answered it twice for you now.

 

[danny la rouge]

Citizen has alluded to the answer, which is: no; the constitution has been so designed as to keep the Shia majority in check, and thus impede possible alliances with Iran, rather than the "reliable" Sunni neighbour, Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore: 3 years for throwing a shoe?

 

[_float_]

Where there any pro-Iran candidates in the 2005 election?

Only one question.

Not answered.

 

[danny la rouge]

Where there any pro-Iran candidates in the 2005 election?

Over there. Why we speak like this?

 

[Yossarian]

Where there any pro-Iran candidates in the 2005 election?

Only one question.

Not answered.

I think the OP's after vague, poorly expressed opinions akin to his own rather than some kind of discussion that'd require him to know what he's talking about.

 

[Citizen66]

I think the OP's after vague, poorly expressed opinions akin to his own rather than some kind of discussion that'd require him to know what he's talking about.

Unlike you who got it completely wrong on the shooting in Northern Ireland thread, started haranguing N_Igma then completely backed down when given pointers by Violent Panda, I suppose?

 

[danny la rouge]

Rather than indulge in bickering, I'll just clarify where I'm coming from.

First, the Iraqi constitution was designed by the US to keep in check the Shia majority, for fear that they might reach an accommodation with Iran. Thus the US sought to protect their interests in the region. In order to do so, it was necessary to talk about helping fragile countries build strong parties and rule-based government, about power sharing, about balancing the various factional interests, and about how wonderful it is that Iraq is taking control of its own affairs again.

However, and I think this is where some misunderstanding occurs, the fact that the US did this does not necessarily imply that they were right to think the Iraqi Shias would seek an accommodation with the regime in Iran (although significant factions did turn out to do so), nor does it necessarily imply that the scheme would be entirely successful in stopping them seek such an accommodation. That isn't the point. The point is that the Iraqi constitution was designed in an attempt to protect, as much as possible, US interests in the region. Successful or not, (and it's too early to tell, though establishment commentators - such as in the journal Foreign Affairs - are beginning to express doubts, which is why there is an emerging narrative contrasting the US project in Iraq with "nation building" in Germany after WWII, and drawing parallels with Vietnam. If it's like Germany, you stay long term. If it's like Vietnam, you learn from that experience, and you cut your losses and get out.), that was its intention. Human relations are difficult to predict, even if you're the world's leading superpower.

Next, to say that is not the same as saying anyone in the Iraqi regime is a US "stooge", if by that you mean that orders come direct from Washington and are followed with alacrity. That's generally not how it works. Yes, the structures are put in place to prevent the "wrong" kind of people getting too much power (by which is meant "nationalists" and "sectarians" who don't understand that the first priority is not to serve the people of the region, but to ensure that US investments and interests are protected), but sometimes, despite best efforts, they turn out not to know right from wrong, and then - depending on circumstances in the region - a coup is required.

That's the general pattern. It's of course too early to tell with Iraq what will happen next - whether they'll know right from wrong - not least since US forces are still there. That makes it far too early to give support to alternative leaders.

And that's what's worth paying attention to in Obama's plans. Which way will he go? Forget what he said in the election. He said what he needed to say. But now he assesses the "realities", will he see Germany or Vietnam? Or points between.

 

[_float_]

the Iraqi constitution was designed by the US to keep in check the Shia majority, for fear that they might reach an accommodation with Iran.

Which parts of the Iraqi constitution do this and what would be the alternative? Do you simply mean that Iraq was required to remain one country rather than split into three or more parts?

...the Iraqi constitution was designed in an attempt to protect, as much as possible, US interests in the region...

*How* exactly?

...the structures are put in place to prevent the "wrong" kind of people getting too much power (by which is meant "nationalists" and "sectarians" who don't understand that the first priority is not to serve the people of the region, but to ensure that US investments and interests are protected)...

What structures? Which "nationalists" and "sectarians" were prevented from getting power?

It is usual to present evidence and then analyse it. You have just given lots of "analysis" with no evidence. I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm saying you have made lots of claims with no actual substance to back them up. For example, you talk about constitutional 'design' and 'structures' but you don't mention one single concrete detail of what you mean by this.

You talk about people/parties being kept away from power, yet again you don't give any examples at all. Sunnis have boycotted previous elections. Senior clerics often don't get directly involved in standing for secular offices, but typically have links to parties that do. But both of these are groups choosing non-involvement for their own reasons - only one party has been banned - ie the baath party.

You also suggest that there are lots of better alternative arrangements for Iraq, but again you don't offer a single example or suggestion.

No doubt there are a lot of issues for Iraqis to decide about the future of the country, but there is nothing fundementally wrong with the system of elected government, coupled with the pre-existing governorships

It is also strange to imply that the constitution was designed to reign in the Shia, in light of the fact that in the 2005 referendum on the new constitution Shia (and Kurdish) areas voted overwhealming "yes" whereas it was the Sunni areas that returned a "no" vote: see here. Now there could be a range of reasons behind this, but the whole issue deserves actual evidence and reasoned discussion, not bland, evidence-free blanket assertions.

 

[danny la rouge]

What structures? Which "nationalists" and "sectarians" were prevented from getting power?

You're missing the point, and not fully reading my post.

the fact that the US did this does not necessarily imply that they were right to think the Iraqi Shias would seek an accommodation with the regime in Iran (although significant factions did turn out to do so), nor does it necessarily imply that the scheme would be entirely successful

I'm not going to go through the Iraqi constitution with you clause by clause, but I do assert that the process was US-led, with US interests in mind, and that as well as anonymous drafters, it is widely reported that the elections took place under the 'Transitional Administrative Law (TAL)'" drawn up by pro-Israel US jurists, including Noah Feldman of New York University.

The US pattern of behaviour is well documented. You can read, for example, Chomsky's Failed States. It catalogues numerous examples, and you can follow up his references if you so wish.

There are numerous studies and commentaries available on the US intentions in Iraq, and I quote from one here:

It is now widely being reported that large parts of the constitution are being translated from English into Arabic, revealing the genealogy of the draft itself. As Robert Fisk and others have reported two of the "advisors" to the drafting process remain "anonymous;" significantly the Americans have assured a prominent role for such "advisors." But American tampering has not been limited to the constitution. Seymour Hersh has recently exposed American meddling in the Iraqi elections of this past January. While no doubt many will not be surprised by Hersh's investigation, the exposure also reveals the administration's serious investment in the current Iraqi government.

(source).

You may also be interested in this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=837

I'm not sure what your reading is, beyond saying that the elections did not really go the US way. Although, of course, the US immediately began re-writing history, by saying that this was a result for democracy, and what they wanted all along.

In the long term, the US will want people they can do business with, and that means they will not desist from meddling. Whether successfully or not is entirely another matter.

 

[david dissadent]

The current "government" – the Kurds and the SCIRI-Da’awa parties – has no credibility among the majority of the Iraqi people.

Dated August 17, 2005

Da'awa turned out to be big winners in the 2009 elections.

This is the kind of bullshit you get when you use "www.globalresearch.ca" as a source. A home of conspiracy nuts to boot.
Link

 

[danny la rouge]

Dated August 17, 2005

Da'awa turned out to be big winners in the 2009 elections.

Indeed. But the article is, as you say, dated 2005.

This is the kind of bullshit you get when you use "www.globalresearch.ca" as a source.
Link

That is indeed bullshit.

 

[_float_]

Indeed. But the article is, as you say, dated 2005.

They also got the most votes in the December 2005 elections, two months after the article was written.

"the SCIRI-Da’awa parties" came first with 41%
"the Kurds" came second with 22%

...so that's 63% of the vote between them

The big change in the recent 2009 provincial elections has been a shift from SCIRI to Dawa: associated press

 

[_float_]

I'm not going to go through the Iraqi constitution with you clause by clause...

Just give me a general example of how the constitution:

"has been so designed as to keep the Shia majority in check"

"was designed in an attempt to protect, as much as possible, US interests in the region"

or a general idea of the

"structures are put in place to prevent the "wrong" kind of people getting too much power"

Yes the writing of the new constitution was "US-led" but you don't state what exactly it is that "Noah Feldman" or "anonymous" wrote that is so objectionable/wrong/unusual.

You ask me to go and read Chomsky, Fisk or "numerous studies and commentaries", but since you already have done so and know that they support your argument, could you summarise in general terms how they support your comments above. I don't think it is valid for you to tell me to go away and read stuff until I agree with you, when you haven't even told me what evidence I am meant to be looking for!

There have been protests raised about the constitution by some Iraqis and there is a process underway reviewing it now. I will come back to this later, but it is strange that you don't refer to this at all.

 

[danny la rouge]

it is strange that you don't refer to this at all.

There are many things to which I haven't referred; these are posts on a bulletin board, not a doctoral thesis.

Do you have an opinion? Is there a reason you have put Noah Feldman's name's in inverted commas? Do you doubt he was involved in the drafting? Or do you doubt he has a particular interest? Perhaps you think an occupying power can be neutral in drafting a constitution for the occupied country?

Do you doubt that TAL is designed to limit Shiite power and make likely stalemate and compromise by requiring super-majorities, as well as unanimous agreement by the presidency council for changes in the U.S.-imposed TAL?

I've read this thread and seen nothing of your reading of these matters. Is there an opinion there, or just a desire to go over electoral statistics?

 

[_float_]

Do you have an opinion?

I have lots of opinions. You are not being very specific.

Is there a reason you have put Noah Feldman's name's in inverted commas? Do you doubt he was involved in the drafting? Or do you doubt he has a particular interest? Perhaps you think an occupying power can be neutral in drafting a constitution for the occupied country?

No reason other than to say "you haven't said what exactly it is that "XXX" (ie anyone) wrote that is so objectionable/wrong/unusual" - in other words, what does it matter who drafted it, if there is nothing wrong with the draft, that you can actually point to?

Do you doubt that TAL is designed to limit Shiite power and make likely stalemate and compromise by requiring super-majorities, as well as unanimous agreement by the presidency council for changes in the U.S.-imposed TAL?

The "Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period" (aka 'transitional administrative law' or TAL) was in effect from June 2004 until replaced by the current constitution in May 2006 following the referendum in October 2005 where 78 percent of voters voted in favour of the current constitution.

I don't know why you want to talk about the TAL all of a sudden, when up until now we have been talking about the Iraqi constitution which has replaced it.

Changes to the constitution can be made by putting them to a referendum. There is a currently ongoing process discussing changes, pretty much all of which have been proposed by Sunni and Kurdish parties.

If the constitution is unfair to the Shia then it seems very strange that Shia parties have been most supportive of the constitution while the biggest objections coming from Sunni parties.

It is also bizarre to complain about a constitution that requires 'compromise', as compromise is an essential part of any democracy, and is only not required under dictatorship.

I'd love for you to describe, even in very general terms, what a non-biased, properly democratic and fully Iraqi constitution would look like and how it would differ from the current one, in your eyes.

Personally my opinion is that the Iraqi constitution falls fully within international norms for a democratic constitution and there is a reasonable procedure in place for changes to be made to it.

 

[danny la rouge]

Personally my opinion is that the Iraqi constitution falls fully within international norms for a democratic constitution and there is a reasonable procedure in place for changes to be made to it.

OK, thanks.

Do you think, though, it falls fully within international norms for an invader and occupier to impose a democracy? Can you see at least the potential for a conflict of interests, let's put it like that?

 

[_float_]

Do you think, though, it falls fully within international norms for an invader and occupier to impose a democracy?

As long as a democracy is actually possible it is better than imposing anything else. Any time a dictatorship is removed, either internally or externally, the successor government and consititution is "imposed" up until the point in time the population actually gets to vote on the replacement. This means that democracy is *always* imposed, at first, but is then confirmed via elections and changes made o the system by those elected. Also since democracy involves more than simply elections (eg an independant judiciary and upholding of human rights etc) it is something that will always take at least several years to emerge rather than happen overnight.

Can you see at least the potential for a conflict of interests, let's put it like that?

Of course there is *potential* for conflicts of interest. It could be argued that insisting on a unitary Iraq goes against Kurdish desires for a separate Kurdistan for example. In fact any system of government in Iraq would please some people more than others - so the only 'fair' solution is something that resembles a compromise, and which leaves the door open for further peaceful political change and reorganisation, to be worked out by Iraqis themselves. I believe that the system now in place allows this.

You have to ask yourself if a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq is in the US/UK's interest? Would this make business in the region easier or not? Would a strong Iraq benefit the US/UK? Do the US/UK actually want to keep troops in Iraq for much longer? What do Americans/British people want to see happen in Iraq?

Depending on how you view these things there is also potential for *commonalities* of interest - that potentially what is good for Iraqis is also good for Americans/British.

Finally, even if I accept that is *potential* for conflicts of interest, I still want to know what the actual conflicts of interest are.

 

[danny la rouge]

Depending on how you view these things there is also potential for *commonalities* of interest - that potentially what is good for Iraqis is also good for Americans/British.

This is where we are going to fundamentally disagree, not least because what we call "US" and "British" interests are actually US and British elite interests. That is, big business, and geo political machinations. These have consistently been in conflict with the interests of not only the masses in the US and UK, but also the masses in the nations being manipulated.

 

[_float_]

In which case even if Iraq had a system in place that was as fair and democratic as the US or UK, and which had the same level of public support as the US or UK, you would still see it as being in conflict with Iraqi interests and being undemocratic.

Maybe you could tell me what form of government there *should* be, in your opinion, in the UK, US and in Iraq, instead of the current system of representative democracy?