Iraqi Elections....

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:27 am

I was reading the lovely Chicago Sun Times this morning, and someone wrote a letter to the editor that I found interesting, so I figured that I would share it here. Ok, here we go. As we all know, the Iraqi elections are growing closer and we all know that we want these to be as democratic as possible. But, how do any of you feel about the possiblity that a hardline Islamic cleric would get elected? What if it was a truly democratic election, no fraud or anything, and someone that is hardline anti-American got in office. Would we stand for it? Do we have any choice? The goal here is to provide Iraq the chance to elect their own government, but to what point do you think that will be allowed to happen? Will no anti-American candidates be allowed, will we claim fraud if something happens not to our liking, will this endeavour to cleanse Iraq of hatred be forgotten? It's an interesting question...at least I thought so.

*edit - How come I have yet to receive kudos on my avatar? Nobody likes Caddyshack?

Plebeian · Post by **Plebeian** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:32 am

What we should do is to get the elections set up, let the Iraqis choose whoever they want, offer the victor our help (only if they want it) in getting the initial government set up, then get the hell out and see how it goes.

But most likely, if the people choose someone our government doesn't like, then I bet there'll be all sorts of nice things going on to show that the election was a fraud (even if it wasn't). I mean, it would be kind of annoying if someone like that got elected, but if it's who the people wanted, then as long as they don't actually do anything to us, then it's not really much of our business whether they like us or not.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:25 pm

I think Saddamn's name should be on the ballet. That would be so telling.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:36 pm

If I understand the situation over there we have deposed the minority party, the Bathists who were keeping the majority of the population, the more radical fundamentalist oriented Shia's under control, as well as the Kurds in the north. The Bathist's weren't known for their religious fanatasism so in a way we have opened Pandora's box.
Except, fortunately for all concerned, recent polling shows that Iraqi's by and large reject the idea of a religious based leadership so we may still see the elected leadership be one that promotes some form of democracy over religious fundamentalism.

I doubt they will end up being particularly friendly to the U.S. but tolerant is good enough for us right now.

I'm optimistic for the potential future of the region but the outcome rests in the hands of the final four years of Bush's administration. A politician. Nuff said on that.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:25 pm

It would be a real shock to me if this election carries any kind of credibility. The country is still in turmoil how can a free and fair election be held in just about thirty days from now. There is no effective political party system in place, no history of democracy to fall back on just a lot of power hungry pre-tyrants clamouring for attention. Best of luck to the Iraqis. I don't think this one is going to count for much.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:47 pm

Gooberman wrote:I think Saddamn's name should be on the ballet. That would be so telling.

indeed. in his current state of incarceration he would be identified as a political prisoner of the usa.

if he were on the ballot, you just know that his extreme faction of loyalists will be doing all they can to menace the voting public. it won't be pretty.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:08 am

Ford wrote:It would be a real shock to me if this election carries any kind of credibility.

Right. Let's pack it in now and return the "President of All Iraq" to his throne. He got 100% of the vote in the last "election", and this one can't possibly stack up to that kind of credibility.

- Sirian

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:40 am

Ford Prefect wrote:It would be a real shock to me if this election carries any kind of credibility. The country is still in turmoil how can a free and fair election be held in just about thirty days from now. There is no effective political party system in place, no history of democracy to fall back on just a lot of power hungry pre-tyrants clamouring for attention. Best of luck to the Iraqis. I don't think this one is going to count for much.

Funny, you could have said the same thing about the Afghans. Yet today they have Hamid Karzai as president, voted in by a overwhelming portion of the electorate that turned out in mind boggling numbers. I suspect the Iraqi's will show their utter rejection of and lack of intimidation for the murderer's that would bring back the "glory" days of a Saddam type govt. For all the nay saying defeatist, I say you've had it too easy too long ( umm, thats directed to americans who keep saying the Iraq election can't possibly happen, it's too soon, delay it till june...ramble ramble)

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:59 am

LOL @ Sirian

I agree with Plebian ... set it up and get the hell out of dodge.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:56 am

woodchip, get off your high horse for two minutes and realize that the elections themselves were not the target of my post. i was wondering what the feeling would be if something that i described in my first post actually happened.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:49 pm

"What if it was a truly democratic election, no fraud or anything, and someone that is hardline anti-American got in office. Would we stand for it? Do we have any choice? The goal here is to provide Iraq the chance to elect their own government, but to what point do you think that will be allowed to happen? Will no anti-American candidates be allowed, will we claim fraud if something happens not to our liking, will this endeavour to cleanse Iraq of hatred be forgotten? It's an interesting question...at least I thought so." Zuruck

Who ever gets elected will be acknowledge by the U.S. as the legitimate leader of Iraq. If that leader tells us bye bye, then off we would have to go. We could not claim fraud. However, much like in the Ukrane, if enough Iraqi's came out and protested that fraud ruled the election, then we might stay until another election was held. At this juncture I can't see any elected leader in Iraq telling us to get out. As weak as they now are the Iraqi's have to realise if we pull out, Syria and Iran stand ready to move in to "help stabalise" their weakened neighbor. I doubt there is an Iraqi alive that wants that to happen.
Better reply?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:14 pm

Yes I could say the same thing about the Afghan elections except that the two situations are pretty much apples and oranges.
1-Afghanistan was given almost two years to recover from the transition from civil war to democracy.
2-It was a civil war with one local faction (the Nothern Alliance) backed by the Coalition forces not an invasion by an outside army of infidels
3-The country's security situation in the north and central areas had stabilized whereas in Iraq it seems to be getting worse.
They are the same in that the elected of Afghanistan government has no power in the south of the country where warlords still rule and in Iraq no elected government will have any power over the Kurds in the north where they have effectively created their own country.
I will be very interested to see what happens if Zuruk's scenario comes to pass. On one hand it would offer the U.S. something it could really use, a way out of the mess. If a legitimate government asks them to leave then they can and if civil war results, well they can justifiably claim that it was not what they wanted but was the choice of the Iraqi people. On the other hand it would be embarassing to be booted out by the ones you claimed to be helping and you might end up with a government in power that is even more dangerous to the U.S. than the previous one. It would be a tough call to have to go back in for a third time.
I feel that this will be more of a practice election. Who ever wins will have to cope with the fact that the U.S. is in effective control of country and just booting them out would result in the wolves closing in. There is also not likely (I will be glad to be proven wrong here) to be an effective majority of any one faction. That would require more political organization that there has been time to create.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:30 am

yea woodchip, that was a better reply. i was trying to avoid bringing any kind of bush bashing or anything else into the mix, i didn't want that to distract from the main idea.

i have a hard time believing that if someone the US does not like is elected, that it would be recognized. I know the idea is to let them have whoever the majority decides, but it just seems to be such a stretch, and a spit in the face to those that have died. " Your son was killed in action to remove a brutal dictator and now the new goverment is the same thing with a different face, so we're pulling out"...I just don't want to hear that.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:29 pm

" Your son was killed in action to remove a brutal dictator and now the new goverment is the same thing with a different face, so we're pulling out"...I just don't want to hear that."

Me neither.

Perediablo · Post by **Perediablo** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:18 pm

The avatar is ok Zuruck. Bill Murray's character was funny. But I think Chevy Chase doing the "L.A." snakebite shot would have been funnier IMO.