Elections in Iraq Thread

Today, Iraq held it's first elections. From what I hear, it actually went off without a hitch. No word yet on who's elected or whatever, but the figure stands at 67% voter turnout, which is pretty damn good, especially if you consider all of the threats people were getting.

So, what are your thoughts on this, and consequences this may have for Middle-Eastern SOciety and Politics?

Its brilliant news, its shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

But hopefully the US won't get too cocky on their achievements and head straight for Iran...

Well, it doesn't really matter; who ever comes to power and is not what the US wanted, we'll just overthrow him and put some CIA-connected guy into office. It's happened before, in places like Indonesia and South America

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not happening since we (the U.S) established the elections in the first place.

Well, the thing is, is that we still want things to run our way, so we can get the oil and other fossil fuels that country holds, and just because we established the elections won't really change anything. Most of that stuff is done on the down-low, so noone really notices what's really going on until it's too late.

NOTE - Of course, by "we", I mean the Republican majority in Congress, which now dominates all three branches of government

those elections are only puff-smoke. no matter what happens america will ruin it anyways. those people are not used to democracy and this form of government has no chance in the short run to bring something like a stable country there. but americains will never learn that different people have different systems and that especially their praised system is catastrophic (i won't go into details, just look at the country in it's current state and you will see the disaster taking place there).

who cares about iraq?!

TOMORROW THE MICHAEL JACKSON TRIAL STARTS!!!

yer lol what do you guys think about that? I honestly believe he will be found not guilty, the f'kin kids are just taking advantage of him. I feel sorry for the bloke.

Start a thread about it then.

Any way, I don't think they are telling the truth about how many people voted in the Iraqi ellections, they said 74% of the expected(I don't think that is the term they used) voters turned out, which seems pretty big, but who are the expected voters?

All of this is novelty. The Iraqi government will be novelty. You can't force Democracy on people. This is It, I'm going all out on this post. None of you know how the middle east works, and I'll tell you it's history and why The United States has just destablized the region for decades to come.

Pay attention Kiddies. Oh and I give credit where credit is due. Sources are: The Politics of the Middle East by Monte Palmer, Published by F.E. Peacock. Lectures by Dr. Naji Dahi P.H.D. Political Science professor at Fullerton College.

So, first thing is first. There is a framework for the politics of the Middle East, and more importantly Iraq. It can be described by Modernization and Political Development. Modernazation can be described as the ability of people to shape and control their environment. It is a lengthy and time-consuming process for a group of people to achieve this. However it is Inevitable in a society. Modernization is disruptive to Traditions and old customs however. Modernization is measured by Urbanization, Industrialization , Communication, and Education. In the case of Iraq, It was becoming modernized at an extremley rapid rate. Under Saddam's rule, the education and health systems were the best in the Middle East, and there was alot of urbanization (Baghdad, Fallujah, etc.) and Industrialization.

Political development is the ability of a nation to keep up with social and economic changes. A country that is democratic, does NOT mean that it is politically developed. For example, a politically developed nation will bend to the will of the people's demands. In Iraq, This sort of political development has been non-existant because of it's resource. Oil.

Oil, as precious as it is for the rest of the world, is the curse of the Iraqi people. Because of the Oil, the government in Iraq can becoming overwhelmingly rich through the sale of oil, and accelerate it's modernization rate. However, since the governments income comes from the state-owned land itself, and not income from taxes, Iraq is considered a "Rentier" state. The government can then use it's wealth to not only modernize, but crush opposition to itself, and obliterate the demands of the people by use of force.

As for the Insurgency, the United States will never be able to wipe it out. Since the beginning of the middle east, before the rise of islam, the Middle East was governless and was populated by tribal societies. The Ethics of these tribes were very ruthless in order to maintain peace. Law and order was maintained by avenging wrongdoings. for example, If a member of one tribe was caught stealing from another, the wronged tribe then have a DUTY to steal from the perpetrators tribe. The same goes for murder.

These tradions and customs stayed within many societies, even as islam rose to majority, and governments came to order. These sentiments still exist today, and as long as an american soldier accidently kills a civilian, the family of the death then feels it has to avenge the death of the family member. This is not however, connecte to the teachings of Islam in anyway. Insurgent muslims only incorporate this old tradition into their new belief.

As for karuto talking about us getting oil. You're kinda there but you're not. Oil was a major factor in invading Iraq, but it's not for us. Let me Explain. The U.S. Department of Energy Estimates that 40% of the worlds energy sources are used by two countries, China and India. Both are Nuclear powers. They also estimates that by 2020 40% of the worlds oil production will come from the middle east. In 2000 they estimated that the middle east held approx. 60% of the worlds proven oil reserves. Oil in the middle east is very cheap to extract. In Iraq it costs around $1.50 to produce a barrel of oil, which currently seels for around $50 a barrel. If The United States, gains control of Oil in the middle east it accomplishes the following: The economy will have a boom. U.S. oil conglomerates such as Exxon-Mobil , Chevron, etc. Will get major profits from the sale of oil to other countries. That's the key. If the U.S. controls part of the 60% of oil that's left, it gains a MAJOR political advantage in dealing with other nations. Especially China. That's why Iraq was a nice target for invasion. It's not Oil for us, it's oil for the rest of the world.

I think that's all. Oh, the sham that is the Iraqi elections.

yawn

typical. disproves your beliefs with facts, and you ignore it. that's also a post worthy of the cosmos section. you still having nothing better to do then troll don't you?

Errm, do you know that there is so much Oil it is rediculous? It has been discovered that there is as much oin in Mexico as there is in Saudi Arabia, which, has more oil than Iraq. The reson we are not seeing the oil is because Mexico does not have the technolegy to extract it, and since the government is in controll of the Mexican Oil industry, none of the other oil industries will supply the rght equipment unless they get some of the profits, which the goverment will not share. The truth is, Earth has more oil than it could possibly use, for centuries. There was no reson at all to invade Iraq, exept America wants to keep any country with world ambibtions out of the game, so they conquered it, set up their government, and are moving on to the other "trouble makers". Obsydian has some of it right, but not all, not meny people could possibly have it all right. One of the main resons for going back is, America is cleaning up the mess it left in the last war, and did not want to have to admit it, so they are using all the excuses they can find to invade, in addition to thei 20th-21st century policy, which is destorying possibly ambitious countries, setting up governments, and building them up economically so that they do nt get all hot and bothered. Well, I hope you could make sense of this.

@Obsydian: I wouldn't necessarily call your statements and speculations fact, it's more or less quoting radical PhD's thought's and perspectives. I'm rather doubting that anything you have posted comes from cumulative knowledge, and more so you finding a response in google. You seem to glamourize Saddam as though he was some sort of faithful leader, and not just another terrorist who had gained political power. His people were mal-nourished and poverty stricken while he lived on the lap of luxury. It's so apparent that he was so blatantly evil, but your dissaproaval of a republican leader has turned you against America. The conspicuous theories you devise are so farfetch'd it's unbelieveable. You are obviously aware that America has recieved no profit or gain of oil, so you say that we will use oil for financial benefit in the future by selling it to other countries. In a country where oil prices are at an all time high, why wouldn't we use the oil for ourselves? By the way, referencing "your best post ever" in your sig is a bit egotistical. WOuldn't you say?

Edited by:

Wilhelm_III wrote: There was no reson at all to invade Iraq, exept America wants to keep any country with world ambibtions out of the game, so they conquered it, set up their government, and are moving on to the other "trouble makers".

Well, if that's the only reason, then I'd say the invasion was justified, wouldn't you? Having Saddam as a world power doesn't seem like the greatest idea.

At least now the Iraqi people will have an oppurtunity to pick who they want... for better or for worse. And also, I'd like to nudge this thread back on track. Please don't let the discussion revert to a US in Iraq flame-war.

Thank you.

well... dethroning a dictator to replace it with another dictator can't be called a progress.

about the elections i heavily doubt they have a real choice. all candidates are build up by the usa and free choice is not possible. also the number of voters is for sure as manipulated as the usa's journalisme in the current stated: all FOXed!

this gonna be a debacle in the future and that's for sure. forcing people to change mind in such a drastic way only caused one thing so far: civil war. and that's what it all will end up: in a big war... thx bush for that.

I think the idea is that this guy can't become dictatorial, whether he wants to or not. The US is going to keep a constant eye on him (I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this is to ensure oil or for the country) and if he steps out of the US' idea of line, then we'll be in there faster than you can say 'usurp'. I'm not saying that that's necesarily a good thing, but the chances of this guy ever becoming as corrupt and evil as saddam are very, very slim.

ok, here is my point of view or "question", that I don't expect anyone to be able to answer, just think about it.

How do you explain freedom? How do you tell people, a nation, whom has suffered generations of tyranneous leaders, civil war, and terrorism; a nation whom has beared poverty and mal-nourishment, poor education, and a people whom have no communication to the outside world that they are free? How do you tell them that they can walk the streets without fear, or that the children can play outside, or that they can go to school, and; that they can choose their leader without having to stare down the barrel of a gun.

I'm afraid I cannot speak intelligently on how it must feel to live only knowing that the place where I reside could be the target of a terrorist at any given moment. That where I eat, where I sleep, the bus that I travel on from day-to-day may be subdued by a bomb and a person whom is willing to sacrifice their life for the sole purpose of invoking fear and terror.

We are liberating a country, a nation, and that takes more knowledge and effort then any of you or I can presume. Sure you can have your litle tiffs over who is right and who is wrong, but it doesn't come down to that. The petty arguements, yours and mine will not make the world a better place. All I can be thankful for, is that someone has taken a step in the right direction to give a country the same liberties and freedoms that I so enjoy.

Edited by:

theres probably going to be a very bad terrorist attack as a symbol of punishment for people voting.

Eloquently put. Of course, we'll see how it all unfolds in the coming months, but I think this is definitely an improvement on the situation Iraq was in pre-invasion.

Obsydian wrote: typical. disproves your beliefs with facts, and you ignore it. that's also a post worthy of the cosmos section. you still having nothing better to do then troll don't you?

"yawn" is just so much easier to type than "that was a load of unecessary bullshit"

sorry, i was trying to be nice.

all you do is quote and claim it as your own accumulated knowledge. and besides i disagree, iraq's previous leader blatantly was a terrorist which can be agreed by everyone.
So lets cut the "Phd in google" and stick with bonified knowledge.

Edited by: ChrisPage

I have my doubts about the war for oil theory. If it was about oil then saddam would have happily done a deal to stay in power, practically giving the oil away. Tony Blair said as much himself before the war.

The major reason for the war in my opinion is the Neo-Conservative tennet that there must be a 'bad guy'. It's a cornerstone of NeoCon thought that for America to rally together they must have a common enemy. Under Reagan and most of Bush Snr's presidencies this was the Soviet Union. After the Soviet collapse and Clinton's rise to power, these NeoCon policies were swept aside. Then with the rise of Dubaya and 9/11, a new enemy emerged, and the NeoCons had their bad guy. Unfortunately they couldn't find Osama, so they falsified a link between Saddam and Al Quaida. The British government and intelligence services then created a dosier full of false claims of Saddam's WMDs and the lie was complete.

The man behind all of this of course is Donald Rumsfeld. It was he who was a pupil of the founder of NeoConservative thought (whose name eludes me for the moment). It was he who presented falsified CIA propaganda on the nuclear capabilities of the USSR to Reagan, which led to the Star Wars program. He's done the same thing to Bush. Bush probably believes he's doing the right thing. The falsified evidence suggests otherwise.

Beh, this is partially speculation of course. I'm probably gonna be spied on by the CIA now.

I think it was just George Bush Jr. trying to get back at Saddamn for his father. That's all it was probably about from both Bush's perspectives

I really wished, however, that Donald Rumsfield stepped down along with the rest of the big idiots in the US government. If only Condeleeza Rice followed them on out as well, we'd probably be a lot better off than what we're getting ourselves into.

but I hate that you guys act like this is a first for the United States... its not like that George bush Jr. is the first to stick his nose in crap that he shouldnt have... I mean damn this isnt so bad compared to alot of things the US shouldnt have done... but yeah hey I am glad that the turnout was decent other than that I really could care less about Iraq I think we need to concentrate more on the US... people need to open their eyes and see that the downward spiral of an empire began a long time ago.

I tend to stay out of politics now, but personally, I don't like the idea of one country imposing their politics and another. Imagine if people from the Middle East came to America and took over, placing a Taliban-esque government or dictator in charge (not that it will happen, but I'm sure Americans wouldn't really like it). I don't like the idea, but I'm sure half of Iraq like it, compared to the half who don't. What's done is done.