let freedom ring

[sabotabby]

So tonight was fun. Not every night out ends with a cop taking statements. But more about that some other time.

I was thinking about the Iraqi elections, though. This morning, some guy on the radio was going on about how even though he'd originally been against the war (and he was OMG teh leftie!!eleventy-one!!!), he now thought that since Iraq was democratic, the Shrub might have been --gasp-- right to invade and occupy the country. I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere, too, which only confirms in my head that the Left is as capable of uncritical stupidity as the Right.

It's a good thing, right? Everyone likes elections. Everyone likes democracy (except for the terrorists who hate freedom). There is so much consensus that "democracy," like "terrorism," is a word completely devoid of meaning.

It should go without saying that one election does not a democracy make. Democracies aren't even made by happy people dancing in the street. Many countries have both of these things, and we still call them dictatorships. The votes haven't even been counted yet, and already we have idiots dyeing their fingers purple and declaring victory.

Hold up a sec.

At the risk of sounding excessively negative (hello, people, username?) what I'm seeing is people deciding on a conclusion, a short-term, Hollywood-style happy ending, no less, and filling in the facts to fit that conclusion. Only...where are these answers coming from when no one is asking questions? Where is the critical voice?

So while I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, I don't think I'm wrong yet. I still have some questions. Some might be easy to answer, I honestly don't know. So.

1. On CBC's election coverage, they interviewed people who were happy and excited about Iraqi democracy. Everyone they interviewed was Kurdish. In the same piece, they talked about a Kurdish referendum. While the votes from the Iraqi election haven't come back, the Kurds voted 80% or more to separate from Iraq. Does this seem odd to anyone?

2. I keep seeing the same two pictures of happy people with purple fingers floating around on the internet, coupled with stories about the aforementioned dancing in the street. Why are there only two pictures? Where were they taken? (Not Fallujah, I'd assume.) Where is everyone else?

3. Oh, by the way, who actually ran in these elections? (And who didn't?) What are the names of the parties? What does each one stand for?

4. What will happen if the Iraqis have voted for someone who wants the US occupation to end? Will the US comply with the democratic decision of the Iraqi people? Likewise, what if a Muslim fundamentalist has won? Will the US respect that?

5. Why can Iraqi refugees and exiles vote, but Palestinian refugees and exiles couldn't vote in their election?

Humour the ignorant Canuck, will ya? I don't think anyone should be breaking out the champagne just yet. As I mentioned to corvus the other day, if I were to dye my finger any colour, it would be blood red for the 100,000 Iraqi civilians who are not alive to decide whether they want a democracy or not.

Comments

[pretzelsalt.livejournal.com]

I love you.

Will you have all my babies?

. . .and then abort them? I don't want babies.

Ummm . . . that is all.

[sabotabby]

Only if they're gay babies.

[somuchforhope.livejournal.com]

you'd only abort your babies if they were gay?

I told Sponge Bob it was only a matter of time before the media got wind of this...

[himy.livejournal.com]

[sabotabby]

If they're gay babies, I get to yell "GAYBORTION" and watch Republicans turn purple and explode.

[somuchforhope.livejournal.com]

I was pondering over whether that might be one case where Republicans might actually approve of abortion...

[sabotabby]

Two out of two drunken queers tonight voted yes to that. As the only (potential) breeder present, however, I thought that controlling women's bodies would still trump hatred of queers and they'd just try to convert the fetuses anyway.

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

Silly me, I thought by definition you couldn't have a "free election" in a country that was militarily occupied by a foreign power.

[sabotabby]

Why do you hate America and freedom and babies?

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

Only american gay babies who are free.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

1. On CBC's election coverage, they interviewed people who were happy and excited about Iraqi democracy. Everyone they interviewed was Kurdish. In the same piece, they talked about a Kurdish referendum. While the votes from the Iraqi election haven't come back, the Kurds voted 80% or more to separate from Iraq. Does this seem odd to anyone?

>>>>>> Well, not too my knowledge was there a question on the ballot on seperting the Kurdish regions from Iraq. They may of voted for candidates who support that idea, but none of the Kurdish parties (to my knowledge) did this.

But yes the Kurds came out in droves, seriously worrying the Turkman, Arabs and Christian populations in thier region, who are really scared of Kurdish nationalism.

But only 60% of the Iraqis voted. We know that the Shi'a and Kurds voted in large numbers. But where were the Sunnis (I'm sure we can imagine)? We've heard news reports saying the Kurd and Shi'a were very very enthusaistic over the elections. But only 60% of the electorite only show up. Yet 75% of the country is Shi'a and Kurdish. That leads me to conclude that those people weren't as enthuisistic as we were led to believe.


2. I keep seeing the same two pictures of happy people with purple fingers floating around on the internet, coupled with stories about the aforementioned dancing in the street. Why are there only two pictures? Where were they taken? (Not Fallujah, I'd assume.) Where is everyone else?

>>>>>> Very valid questions.

3. Oh, by the way, who actually ran in these elections? (And who didn't?) What are the names of the parties? What does each one stand for?

>>>>>> An election authority set up by the Provisional Authority (itself a creation of the Americans) ran it under UN supervison. There were about 75 parties grouped in to about a dozen coalitions that ran on a ticket (called a list). This is a little old (hasn't been updated since this summer) but it details the major political movers and shakers who took part in the election.

http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqiopposition.html

But the election and candidates were essentially anonymous. The lists were numbered, so if say the Supreme Council of Islamic Resistance in Iraq wanted you to vote for thier coalition, they would say "vote for #123", and people were expected to remember that when they voted. The candidates names were not made public for fear of asassination attempts.



4. What will happen if the Iraqis have voted for someone who wants the US occupation to end? Will the US comply with the democratic decision of the Iraqi people? Likewise, what if a Muslim fundamentalist has won? Will the US respect that?

>>>>>> That is not known. The U.S. government has stated publically that it will leave if asked to after the election. But a Iraqi Security official siad it would be atleast 18 months before the Iraqi military forces could control the country by themselves.


Bush said in a press conferance last summer that the U.S. will respect whomever the Iraqi people chose.

There are only two groups advocating an Islamist state in Iraq. One is Maqtada al-Sadr, who doesn't have the political power to do this as long a Ayotolloh Sustani is around, IMHO. Sadr is a Shi'a Khamemeist inspired by Iran's government.

The second is the famous Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Arab aligned with some elements of Sunni resistance and Al Aqaeda. He is a Wahabbist who wants a Islamic Caliph in Iraq.

None of the parties except for maybe the Supreme Council for Islamic Resistance in Iraq are advocating an Islamic state. Ayotollah Sistani is a quietist (one who thinks that Islam and government doesn't mix)


5. Why can Iraqi refugees and exiles vote, but Palestinian refugees and exiles couldn't vote in their election?

>>>>>> I have no idea. I guess you'll have to ask the Palestinian Authority about that.


I totally agree this election, like all elections, are a sham. A good unbiased source is the blog of Juan Cole, a prof. of Middle East history at the University of Michigan.

You might be interested in this peice of bad news from Colorado.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_us/speaker_protest_5

Sorry for the large post.

[seanmonster.livejournal.com]

Ayotollah Sistani is a quietist (one who thinks that Islam and government doesn't mix)

And bless him for that. If only we could get more Christians with that attitude.

[mcsokrates.livejournal.com]

Sistani does not think "that Islam and government doesn't [sic] mix" Sistani publicly endorses Sharia as the law of the land for family status law - This means for divorce, adoption, marriage, etc. Iraqi Shias would be subject to the Shia Ayatollah's rulings, Sunnis would be subject to the Sunni Grand Mufti's rulings, and Chaldeans would be subject to the Chaldean Patraiarch. This is not a separation fo Church and State. It's much closer to a Shia version of moderate Islamism.

[mcsokrates.livejournal.com]

that should be personal status alw, not family status.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

Thanks for you're corrections on the Kurdish election.

I forgot that Sistani does advocate the application of Sharia.

[mcsokrates.livejournal.com]

No doubt.

I think the spirit of your original comments are right though, in that Sistani is exactly the sort of Muslim cleric that scares the shit out of Bush & co. - he's committed to the idea that democracy and Islam are not only compatible but fellow travelers on an ideological road. A political Islam that accepts democracy is the weak point in Bush's ideological armor (this explains the demonization of Qaradawi, someone who, in addition to condemning the idea of violent Jihad as heretical, has more sway over the jihadist tendency in Sunni Islam than any US policy ever will.)

[mcsokrates.livejournal.com]

Also, the Kurds did vote on independence, although the referendum was nonbinding. Every party on the Kurdistan list officially seeks ultimate independence for Iraqi Kurdistan. Likely, Barzani will choose to remain an autonomous state within a federal Iraqi republic, but don't expect them to stay that way for long.

[sabotabby]

Heh, not at all. Some of my questions were completely rhetorical (#5), but some actually have a few answers, and I very much appreciate any sources of information.

Did you hear that Ward Churchill's truck got defaced? With swastikas?

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

Yes I of that. Now the Cherokee tribe from Oklahoma is denying that he is on thier roles.

But everyone familiar with native issues knows that the Cherokee accounting system is way messed up. If your ancestors were on a 1909 Dawes roll, you're eligible to be enrolled as Cherokee, but if you're not you're not.

Therefore, you could be totally white with a great-great grandmother who was 1/4 Cherokee and be egible, or you could be of 100% Cherokee ancestory and not be elgible because your great-great grandparents didn't get a chance to sign up on the rolls.

Of course, the media has missed that neuance.

[apperception.livejournal.com]

U.S. ENCOURAGED BY VIETNAM VOTE; Officials
Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

By PETER GROSE Special to The New York Times.
New York Times (1857-Current file).
New York, N.Y.: Sep 4, 1967. pg. 2, 1 pgs

[sabotabby]

Yep...saw that one.

[seanmonster.livejournal.com]

...he'd originally been against the war, he now thought that since Iraq was democratic, the Shrub might have been --gasp-- right to invade and occupy the country.

Bullshit. Even if everything had gone off without a hitch, it is still wrong.

I heard something on NPR about how as many as 40% of Iraqis voting thought that they were voting for a president.

[sabotabby]

I also heard that a great deal of them turned out because you got free food if you voted.

::boggles::

Funny...

[(Anonymous)]

Funny,

That's what 50.483 % of Ohioans thought too and all they got was this lousy commander in thief...

[lokust.livejournal.com]

an unmitigated disaster woudl be seen instantly.
a 'success' would take YEARS to qualify, and people are overlooking that.
it it's stupid.
<3!

[sabotabby]

Exactly. People are sick of the war, and I don't blame them. So they wanted it to be over. And they want to have won. But desire and will do not make reality, regardless of what the Bushies think.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

The Star had an article about how it was Ali al-Sistani that forced the Americans to have an election. He wanted it earlier, and had they listened to him, it would not have been so traumatic in its lead-up, as there weren't as many terrarists.

It's also al-Sistani that said that voting was more important than prayer and fasting. Man, do the Americans owe him a favour or two.

Anyway I gotta go but I'll link the article later if I can find it.

[sabotabby]

Looks like he's winning so far, too. This should be interesting.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

Wow. This is the best news for Iraqis in a long time. And even though they might not want to admit it, that's the best news the Americans could hope for too...