Has true democracy been achived in Iraq?

[Knotted]

Is this relevant? What are elections in Iraq going to do? The Iraqis get to choose which administration let's the likes of Haliburton plunder and wreck the country. Great.

What's democracy without sovereignty? Without an economy not propped up by outsiders? Where officials do the bidding of the highest bidder? In an oil rich country without any petrol at the petrol stations? Where sewage runs through the streets? This is bullshit.

 

[_float_]

Is this relevant?

What do you think this thread is about?

What are elections in Iraq going to do? The Iraqis get to choose which administration let's the likes of Haliburton plunder and wreck the country. Great.

Can you provide any evidence that the Iraqi government is *compelled* to do business wih any specific company? I have heard his again and again, but never any proof of these claims.

Who is to say that the Iraqi people don't elected a government that sets up nationalised companies?

What's democracy without sovereignty? Without an economy not propped up by outsiders? Where officials do the bidding of the highest bidder? In an oil rich country without any petrol at the petrol stations? Where sewage runs through the streets? This is bullshit.

How is the Iraqi economy "propped up by outsiders"?
Where is your evidence that officials are being bribed and what are they being told to do?
Oil needs to be pumped out of the ground, refined, transported and distributed via a network of stations - it isn't enough to have it sitting hundreds of metres underground. Iraq may have large reserves but this doesn't automatically translate into petrol at the pump.

You seem to be saing that democracy is bullshit. Elections alone don't get sewers dug, but how would taking away democracy help improve sewage? Are you the kind of person who believes that only a dictatorship can "make the trains to run on time"? You don't think democracy is working - so what system of government should there be in Iraq?

 

[Knotted]

Who is to say that the Iraqi people don't elected a government that sets up nationalised companies?How is the Iraqi economy "propped up by outsiders"?
Where is your evidence that officials are being bribed and what are they being told to do?

Iraq does not have a functioning economy after years of war and sanctions. There is very little for an Iraqi government to do except comply with the coalitition forces and play a bit of ethnic politics. That's why nobody voted in the recent provincial elections.

Oil needs to be pumped out of the ground, refined, transported and distributed via a network of stations - it isn't enough to have it sitting hundreds of metres underground. Iraq may have large reserves but this doesn't automatically translate into petrol at the pump.

We're talking infrastructure? Remind me who destroyed Iraq's infrastructure.

 

[danny la rouge]

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?

What I think is that the elites of Western Europe, and now its offshoot, the US, have for 500 years pillaged the globe.

The situation in Iraq occurred because the US and the UK thought it in their interests to keep Saddam in place as a counterpoint to Iran. They armed him and shored him up, even though they knew him to be a tyrant and a monster, even when he was gassing his own people.

That is why the people of Iraq had a monster in need of overthrow. And instead of helping the people of Iraq resist and overthrow him, they eventually invaded and occupied and brought maximum devastation. Indeed, they actively stopped the anti Saddam resistance. Instead of overthrowing him the first time (because there was no suitable replacement), they left him in place, chastened. And permitted him to put down the rising that could have finished their botched job.

So, any talk of being in it because they love democracy is just the hollow words of war criminals.

 

[_float_]

That's why nobody voted in the recent provincial elections.

Iraq, 31 January 2009 governorate elections = c. 51%

The leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, blamed an election day vehicle ban, which forced voters to walk long distances to their polling stations, for the modest turnout.

FWIW this is better than UK local and european elections, and recent UK general elections have not been massively better:

2001 general election = 59.54%.
2004 european election = 38.4%
2003 local elections in England = 34.9%

 

[Knotted]

Iraqis have severe and immediate problems. If they thought the incoming government would do anything they would have not been put off by a bit of a walk.

 

[_float_]

Iraq does not have a functioning economy after years of war and sanctions. There is very little for an Iraqi government to do except comply with the coalitition forces and play a bit of ethnic politics.

There is a *vast* amount for the Iraqi government to do.

 

[_float_]

What I think is that the elites of Western Europe, and now its offshoot, the US, have for 500 years pillaged the globe.

The situation in Iraq occurred because the US and the UK thought it in their interests to keep Saddam in place as a counterpoint to Iran. They armed him and shored him up, even though they knew him to be a tyrant and a monster, even when he was gassing his own people.

That is why the people of Iraq had a monster in need of overthrow. And instead of helping the people of Iraq resist and overthrow him, they eventually invaded and occupied and brought maximum devastation. Indeed, they actively stopped the anti Saddam resistance. Instead of overthrowing him the first time (because there was no suitable replacement), they left him in place, chastened. And permitted him to put down the rising that could have finished their botched job.

So, any talk of being in it because they love democracy is just the hollow words of war criminals.

Your reply doesn't answer my question:

What form of government *should* there be, in your opinion, in the UK, US and in Iraq, instead of the current system of representative democracy?

 

[Knotted]

There is a *vast* amount for the Iraqi government to do.

Yes and very little that it can do. That's why the formality of elections is not particularly relevant. Do you have a coherent point to make?

 

[_float_]

Iraqis have severe and immediate problems. If they thought the incoming government would do anything they would have not been put off by a bit of a walk.

51% turnout isn't too bad for local/regional elections. The "incoming government" will be elected in a general election in December. At the last Iraqi general election in Dec 2005 turnout was 58% despite the Sunni boycott.

 

[Knotted]

51% turnout isn't too bad for local/regional elections. The "incoming government" will be elected in a general election in December. At the last Iraqi general election in Dec 2005 turnout was 58% despite the Sunni boycott.

In 2005 there was a boycott and there was intimidation at the polling stations yet turnout has now dropped.

 

[_float_]

This thread is titled "Has true democracy been achived in Iraq?"

Your contributions so far:

...What are elections in Iraq going to do?...
...Iraq does not have a functioning economy after years of war and sanctions... [wrong]
...There is very little for an Iraqi government to do... [wrong]
...nobody voted in the recent provincial elections... [wrong]
...the formality of elections is not particularly relevant... [wrong]

Seems like you are the one struggling for a coherent point. Maybe you should start off by nailing your colours to the mast and declaring where you stand on the concept of representative democracy? Maybe you don't belive in it anywhere? You haven't made it clear.

 

[Knotted]

I might be wrong but you haven't made a case yet. Sorry, just getting a bit impatient. I'll leave you to it.

 

[_float_]

In 2005 there was a boycott and there was intimidation at the polling stations yet turnout has now dropped.

The voting for regional elections in Jan 2005 were held at the same time as a national vote for the transitional assembly so you are no making a like-for-like comparison. You will always get a higher turnout for a national election. Also the the Iraqi Electoral Commission considered the Jan 2005 election to have taken place "without major disruption".

 

[Knotted]

The voting for regional elections in Jan 2005 were held at the same time as a national vote for the transitional assembly so you are no making a like-for-like comparison. You will always get a higher turnout for a national election. Also the the Iraqi Electoral Commission considered the Jan 2005 election to have taken place "without major disruption".

Spin.

Edit:
Here's a link to a reuters article on the turnout.

"The lower turnout I think would reflect cynicism but also world-weariness with the vote. You had that huge tidal wave of expectation in 2005 ... and that crashed up against the reality of a fairly incompetent ruling elite," said Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at the University of London.

 

[david dissadent]

The situation in Iraq occurred because the US and the UK thought it in their interests to keep Saddam in place as a counterpoint to Iran.

This only makes any vague sense druing 1991, otherwise its another misrepresentation of Iraqi history.

They armed him and shored him up,

Unless they were making T-55s in Pittsburg or Mirages in Leeds I think you will find they were only ever minor suppliers to him.

So, any talk of being in it because they love democracy is just the hollow words of war criminals.

Nice strawman. Who gives a damn if it was love of democracy or the only vaible alternative left after the catastrophies of the Bremner regime. Moot point, does Iraq have a independent secular democracy.... no. Does it have a viable working political process with the peoples elected representatives yes, and given the bloodshed of the past couple of years only savages would to see it undermined to make a political point.

 

[danny la rouge]

Nice strawman.

I love it when people say "strawman" and other stuff they learned in philosophy 101 instead of "I don't agree with you".

 

[danny la rouge]

What form of government *should* there be, in your opinion, in the UK, US and in Iraq, instead of the current system of representative democracy?

Democracy that isn't subverted by the will of big business.

 

[_float_]

I love it when people say "strawman" and other stuff they learned in philosophy 101 instead of "I don't agree with you".

'Strawman' doesn't mean 'I don't agree with you'. You'd have to say: "You are setting up a weak/fake argument that you are passing off as mine, for the purpose of being able to knock it down easily - like a straw man. You need to address the real argument, not one you made up."

In fact when someone knocks down a strawman argument you may well agree with them on that (irrelevant) point.

 

[danny la rouge]

'Strawman' doesn't mean 'I don't agree with you'. You'd have to say: "You are setting up a weak/fake argument that you are passing off as mine, for the purpose of being able to knock it down easily - like a straw man. You need to address the real argument, not one you made up."

In fact when someone knocks down a strawman argument you may well agree with them on that (irrelevant) point.

OMG.

My point is the inappropriate use of the phrase.

While we're here, though, your lumping together of Iraqi, US and UK democracy was a sleight of hand, wasn't it? And yet I answered.

 

[_float_]

No it wasn't a 'sleight of hand', it was in light of your comment

...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.

I understood this to be implying that there is something wrong with US and UK democracy as well as Iraqi democracy, so when I asked you how in your opinion democracy should be improved, I deliberately included all three countries. I am trying to understand if you complaints are only about the Iraqi system or are about all or most current systems of elected representatives.

Does the UK have a more democratic system of government in your opinion? Or maybe you can point to a different country altogether that would be a good model for Iraq?

 

[danny la rouge]

No it wasn't a 'sleight of hand', it was in light of your comment
I understood this to be implying that there is something wrong with US and UK democracy as well as Iraqi democracy, so when I asked you how in your opinion democracy should be improved, I deliberately included all three countries. I am trying to understand if you complaints are only about the Iraqi system or are about all or most current systems of elected representatives.

And I answered. But I wouldn't compare the situation in Iraq with that in the US or the UK; it is you who doers that, and I think I can see why. But it's wishful thinking.

Yes, I have a critique of neoliberalism, and of Western imperialism, bujt I wouldn't argue its effects on the UK or US are equivalent to its effects on the conquered nations.

 

[david dissadent]

I love it when people say "strawman" and other stuff they learned in philosophy 101 instead of "I don't agree with you".

You have basicly just produced bullshit and misrepresentation to try to make your case. Dragging articles from nutter websites about now defunct documents by writers with sectarian agendas (dismissing the popularity of Shia and Kurdish political parties who had long standing support in their communities before the invasion, won large amounts of votes before and after the article) and have seriously distored Iraqi history.

Here is Juan Cole on the Iraqi constitution

In the Iraqi elections, Shiite fundamentalist parties closely allied with Iran came to power. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the leading party in parliament, was formed by Iraqi expatriates at the behest of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1982 in Tehran. The Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party is the oldest ideological Shiite party working for an Islamic state. It helped form Hizbullah in Beirut in the early 1980s. It has supplied both prime ministers elected since 2005. Fundamentalist Shiites shaped the constitution, which forbids the civil legislature to pass legislation that contravenes Islamic law. Dissidents have accused the new Iraqi government of being an Iranian puppet.

link

You will notice this article is highly critical (extremely so) of US involvement in Iraq. This is what makes danny's efforts in this thread so pathetic, you can really tear appart the US and Uk without having to make a fool out of yourself. Just stick to the facts.

 

[danny la rouge]

You have basicly just produced bullshit and misrepresentation to try to make your case. Dragging articles from nutter websites about now defunct documents by writers with sectarian agendas (dismissing the popularity of Shia and Kurdish political parties who had long standing support in their communities before the invasion, won large amounts of votes before and after the article) and have seriously distored Iraqi history.

OK, well, let’s look at that. First, the link I provided did not form part of my argument, look at the post: I don’t quote from it, it doesn’t form any part of the argument, I merely present it as an example. Second, finding another article which is an example of conspiralunacy is not an argument against that article. It doesn’t work like that.

With hindsight, should I have included the link? No, given your fixation on it. Did I say I agreed with its contents? No, I did not.

So where are we? Well, with you apparently "highly critical (extremely so) of US involvement in Iraq", but for some reason calling me pathetic for also being so.

Well, you're a charming ally, and it's been nice doing business.

 

[butchersapron]

I like this new fangled Democracy in Afghanistan mind:

US will appoint 'Afghan PM' to bypass Hamid Karzai

The US and its European allies are preparing to plant a high-profile figure in the heart of the Kabul government in a direct challenge to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, the Guardian has learned.

The creation of a new chief executive or prime ministerial role is aimed at bypassing Karzai. In a further dilution of his power, it is proposed that money be diverted from the Kabul government to the provinces. Many US and European officials have become disillusioned with the extent of the corruption and incompetence in the Karzai government, but most now believe there are no credible alternatives, and predict the Afghan president will win re-election in August.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's a fully functioning democracy, just like the US and UK.