Eight Million Vote in Iraq

[Cal]

Don't know if this as been on yet.


Despite death threats 8,000,000 people voted in Iraq yesterday (60% of those eligable)

This turnout figure matches very well with figures in the recent US election and with the turnout for the British General election in 2001.

Turnout in 'Sunni' areas was higher than expected also (around 20%)

[America]

Naturally:

People given the choice to vote will want to vote. (IRAQ)

People given the chance to vote out opressors will vote them out. (NICARAGUA, 1987)

America

[Cal]

In agreement,

I think it's fantastic news with regards the elections.

[NovelGentry]

60% of those eligable.... eligable being the key word. I guess the big question is to find out why over 50% of the population is uneligable.

[Ele'ill]

possibly areas with heavy resistance are considered not elligible because the US wouldn't want insurgents voting. How democratic of US.

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

dose this take in to account the Iraqis refuges in the U$ and Canada?

[Cal]

Fair point, but taking into consideration age etc. it is still a fantastic turn out.

Iraq's population is around 22 million, (figures taken from Arab Net)

8 million is 60% therefore around 14 million eligable to vote,

Turnout in Baghdad 80%
Turnout in Najaf 80%
Turnout in Karbala 90%

Again I mentioned in my previous post the estimate for the so called 'Sunni triangle' at around 20%

These people faced death threats and still voted, an obvious indication of where the people want to see their country developing.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:53 AM
People given the chance to vote out opressors will vote them out. (NICARAGUA, 1987)
bush 2004....need i say more...

[Cal]

possibly areas with heavy resistance are considered not elligible because the US wouldn't want insurgents voting. How democratic of US

Every citizen was eligable to register to vote, whether or not the insurgents chose to register is up to them,

The Insurgents instead threatened to kill anyone who voted, How democratic of them!

These elections have also been supervised by the UN who so far have been incredibl pleased with all aspects of the democratic system.

[NovelGentry]

More Exact Numbers:

Iraq's Pop according to CIA world factbook: 25,374,691

That means 31.5% did vote.

.60x = 8,000,000

aka: 60% of those eligable is 8,000,000 solve for X: 13,333,333 (on the low side of 13,000,000)

13,333,333 / 25,374,691 = 52.5 %

So 47.5% (fairly exact) were uneligable to vote. This could be because they were not registered. Why were they not registered? Maybe they disagree with what's going on. Still only 31.5% did vote leaving 68.5% of those eligable and those not who didn't. Why is nearly 70% of the country not voting? I don't think fear is a valid explaination.

These are not "good results" just like the results of US elections are not good when you account for those who are not registered (for whatever reason) and those who do not vote (probably because they're sick of the choices and don't feel it will make a different... how right they are).

[NovelGentry]

More than half of the respondents (54.9%) said the elections will bring 'economic prosperity' while 45.1% thought the opposite.

Well it's nice to see the capitalists got up and voted.


More than half of the respondents said there was no problem to have democratic elections under foreign occupation.

Strange how this number coincides with the percentage who think of "economic prosperity" when they think of reasons to vote.

[Cal]

You have though failed to take into account the percentage of the population that are ineligable due to age.

From your same CIA fact book,

The number of Iraqis between the ages of 0-14 is 10,238,139 over
40% of the population who are ineligable because of age.

Therfore to take that figure from your 25,374,691 leaves us
with 15,136,498 and I'm sure there are a few in that category
between 15 and 18. Therfore 13 million (your figure) eligable from
15,136,498 isn't too bad at all.

Again, GOOD Turnout


There is also the issue of the Sunnis which I have mentioned in all of my previous posts.

Saying 70% of the population did not bother to vote is wrong.

[NovelGentry]

Saying 70% of the population did not bother to vote is wrong.

I didn't say this. I said nearly 70% of those who are ineligable or eligable but didn't, did not vote. And I'm very well aware age is a factor for ineligability. I'm assuming the age is 18. Even if that is 50% of those uneligable, these are still NOT good numbers.


And there is just the posibility that there are people that wanted to vote but the threat of being blown up by their own countrymen put them off.

Yeah, and let's not forget all those who didn't vote because they were already blown up by the occupying force.

[Cal]

But you did say that.


Why is nearly 70% of the country not voting?

I also agree that there have been many casualties due to the 'occupying force' but that is not the point I was making, the point of this exercise is that 8 million Iraqis braved death threats to cast their vote and as our maths has proved that is a very sizeable chunk of the adult population,

It (democracy) is obviously something that at least this percentage of the population desire, (otherwise why would you risk death threats)

But now you've mentioned it bring Saddam back, as he was a lovely fella after all,
Saddam made democracy easy there was only one name on the ballot paper (plus your own of course so he knew exactly who had voted)

[NovelGentry]

and as our maths has proved that is a very sizeable chunk of the adult population,

But it's not. Even if you're only looking at the 60% turnout, it's STILL attrocious.

Good voter turnout for non-compulsory democracies == 87% of those registered (and thus eligable)

Good voter turnout for compulsory democracies == 13%

You can't consider 60% turnout good. It's simply NOT RIGHT. Then you look at who actually voted for who and all the sudden you see it's a very select few people who are deciding what happens to the whole of the Iraqi people. There was a thing I was looking at somewhere called "Choosing not to vote is not disenfranchisement." It may not be disenfranchisement, but it represents a problem.

We don't pick our leaders, nor do the Iraqi people (nor do any so-called democracies last I checked). Our leaders are picked for us from the ruling class or those in bed with the ruling class and then we get to decide which one of them we want. Even if this is not the PRIMARY reason people are not voting, it is a reason. This is not a freedom, it is a simple illusion.


It (democracy) is obviously something that at least this percentage of the population desire, (otherwise why would you risk death threats)

This percentage is no where near a majority, and the decision of who is elected becomes even less of a majority since that percentage will be split yet again.


But now you've mentioned it bring Saddam back, as he was a lovely fella after all,
Saddam made democracy easy there was only one name on the ballot paper (plus your own of course so he knew exactly who had voted)

Ahh yes it's the lesser of two evils, so we go with the lesser. This isn't about the lesser of two evils, it's about destroying a system where those are our options.

[Cal]

Ahh yes it's the lesser of two evils, so we go with the lesser

That's common sense, i understand that we have distinct ideological differences but would you have the greater of the two evils?

So what's the plan for Iraq then?

[pandora]

Let's take it deeper. People voting in itself would be a good thing, but....

a.) The majority feel that they are endorsing the United States by voting. Hence many refuse to vote or are disenfranchised, particularly certain religions whom the U.S. sees as enemies. Who are precisely those who lead with the most resistance. Hence peace will not be got through an election where these groups are disenfranchised. Obviously they did not agree with the candiates or the reigning group behind the election. Some of these groups have already executed any U.S. backed officers so this will continue leading to further unrest.

b.) And this is the main point, will the election change anything for the Iraqi people, perhaps, perhaps they will get some small portion of control. But is the U.S. going to give back their oil? Is the U.S. going to lower back the price for domestic consumption? Is the U.S. going to allow labor unions are step back and allow the Iraqis to build an infrastructure that fits their needs. Or are they going to force Iraq to build roads and railways towards export like a colony?


Most important: Is the government elected simply a figurehead puppet for the United States, an object for the Iraqi people to blame to take heat away from the United States who is pulling the strings, and will this government most likely be overthrown like Sierra Leone and the Diamond industry only hear oil, leaving those who tried to actually take back their country out of civic duty left as sacrifical lambs upon the alter.

THese are but three of the official commodifications of empire in colonization.

Is Iraq an occupied territory turning into a colony of the United States. Yes.

Will the new government have any real power to make decisions, most likely no.

Can the Iraqi people vote out US intervention or nationalize the oil fields. No!

End of story, I rest my case.

[Severian]

I'd say the turnout actually shows something different: if you say "don't vote or I'll kill you" it kinda pisses people off and makes 'em say: "fuck you, I'm voting.

Also the support the Kurdish nationalist and Shi'a theocratic parties have in their respective communities - both campaigned for a high turnout.

These elections were in no way an excercise in democracy - elections must take place in an atmosphere of free speech, etc, to be democratic, and that definitely doesn't prevail under the occupation.

They do strengthen the occupation and its efforts to consolidate a client regime and army of reasonable strength. If Washington can do that, the insurgency has no realistic prospect to overthrow them.

They don't indicate that most Iraqis like the occupation...on the contrary, the Shi'a fundamentalist parties did very well with promises to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, and even Allawi had to make vague noises and send out mixed signals about it.

The exception is the Kurds, who still largely favor the occupation...in part because they don't have to live under it.

[NovelGentry]

That's common sense, i understand that we have distinct ideological differences but would you have the greater of the two evils?

So what's the plan for Iraq then?

In case you weren't aware, there's a bunch of people still fighting over there to get the US. These people need to dump this pseud-democracy and join them, then and only then will they have the freedom to create even a valid pseudo-democracy, hopefully they would have something in the nature of true democracy, but this would obviously require some destruction of classes.

So no, I would not have the greater of the two evils, I would do as many are already doing and pick up a rifle and kill both of them wherever they stand.

[chebol]

Or they were just picking up the groceries- Democracy Capitalist-style. (Remember that the US-puppet regime in Vietnam got an "80%" turnout once upon a time-

September 3, 1967 - National elections were held in South Vietnam. With 80 percent of eligible voters participating, [General] Nguyen Van Thieu is elected president with {Air Marshal] Nguyen Cao Ky as his vice-president.)
From Vietnam War Ttimeline 1965-1973 website


*electronicIraq.net

**News & Analysis* <http://electroniciraq.net/news/newsanalysis.shtml>
*Some Just Voted for Food

Dahr Jamail, /Inter Press Service/

31 January 2005*

BAGHDAD, Jan 31 (IPS) - Voting in Baghdad was linked with receipt of food rations, several voters said after the Sunday poll.

Many Iraqis said Monday that their names were marked on a list provided by the government agency that provides monthly food rations before they were allowed to vote.

"I went to the voting centre and gave my name and district where I lived to a man," said Wassif Hamsa, a 32-year-old journalist who lives in the predominantly Shia area Janila in Baghdad. "This man then sent me to the person who distributed my monthly food ration."

Mohammed Ra&#39;ad, an engineering student who lives in the Baya&#39;a district of the capital city reported a similar experience.

Ra&#39;ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. "The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting," he said. "Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote."

"Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote," said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.

There has been no official indication that Iraqis who did not vote would not receive their monthly food rations.

Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies.

Their experiences on the day of polling have underscored many of their concerns about questionable methods used by the U.S.-backed Iraqi interim government to increase voter turnout.

Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar who owns an auto garage in central Baghdad had said: "I&#39;ll vote because I can&#39;t afford to have my food ration cut...if that happened, me and my family would starve to death."

Hajar told IPS that when he picked up his monthly food ration recently, he was forced to sign a form stating that he had picked up his voter registration. He had feared that the government would use this information to track those who did not vote.

Calls to the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI) and to the Ministry of Trade, which is responsible for the distribution of the monthly food ration, were not returned.

Other questions have arisen over methods to persuade people to vote. U.S. troops tried to coax voters in Ramadi, capital city of the al-Anbar province west of Baghdad to come out to vote, AP reported.

IECI officials have meanwhile &#39;downgraded&#39; their earlier estimate of voter turnout.

IECI spokesman Farid Ayar had declared a 72 percent turnout earlier, a figure given also by the Bush Administration.

But at a press conference Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying the turnout would be nearer 60 percent of registered voters.

The earlier figure of 72 percent, he said, was "only guessing" and "just an estimate" that had been based on "very rough, word of mouth estimates gathered informally from the field." He added that it will be some time before the IECI can issue accurate figures on the turnout.

"Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it&#39;s over," he said. "It is too soon to say that those were the official numbers."

Where there was a large turnout, the motivation behind the voting and the processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up north were voting for autonomy, if not independence. In the south and elsewhere Shias were competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member national assembly.

In some places like Mosul the turnout was heavier than expected. But many of the voters came from outside, and identity checks on voters appeared lax. Others spoke of vote-buying bids.

The Bush Administration has lauded the success of the Iraq election, but doubtful voting practices and claims about voter turnout are both mired in controversy.

Election violence too was being seen differently across the political spectrum.

More than 30 Iraqis, a U.S. soldier, and at least 10 British troops died Sunday. Hundreds of Iraqis were also wounded in attacks across Baghdad, in Baquba 50km northeast of the capital as well as in the northern cities Mosul and Kirkuk.

The British troops were on board a C-130 transport plane that crashed near Balad city just northwest of Baghdad. The British military has yet to reveal the cause of the crash.

Despite unprecedented security measures in which 300,000 U.S. and Iraqi security forces were brought in to curb the violence, nine suicide bombers and frequent mortar attacks took a heavy toll in the capital city, while strings of attacks were reported around the rest of the country.

As U.S. President George W. Bush saw it, "some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens."

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1846.shtml

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:23 AM
The Insurgents instead threatened to kill anyone who voted, How democratic of them&#33;

The insurgency isn’t one group it contains many schisms. the unite one on thing Anti-US occupation.

[seraphim]

No matter what our arguments with the U.S and U.K governments over the reasons for going to war its great that at least some of Iraqs population has exercised a right to vote something no Iraqi under the age of fifty has ever done.

[encephalon]

people didn&#39;t vote because of some "democratic ideology." They voted because one would suppose that it would hasten the US backing out.

An imposed democracy is not any better than an imposed dictatorship. imposed democracy is an oxymoron. If the majority wanted a sham democracy as much as popular media supposes, they would have arose in revolution like the rest of the world did in the face of tyranny.

These people are not excersizing their rights as citizens. They are doing what they are told will end a foreign invasion, the cause of severe disruption in every aspect of their lives.

[Sabocat]

I wouldn&#39;t believe any of the rhetoric being released by the major media outlets. They have a poor track record with regards to accurate reporting. They are after all....embedded or in-bed-with, whichever phrase you prefer. I have emphasised a portion of this article which may be of particular interest.


Iraq elections set stage for deeper crisis of US occupation regime
By Patrick Martin
31 January 2005


The election January 30 in Iraq marks a further intensification of the contradictions confronting American imperialism, both in Iraq and at home. It will neither resolve the crisis of the American stooge regime in Baghdad, hated and despised by the vast majority of the Iraqi people, nor legitimize the US occupation in the eyes of the world and among large sections of the American public.

George W. Bush emerged from the White House briefly to make a triumphal statement hailing the vote. The US media carried wall-to-wall, gushing coverage all day Sunday. But even the combined propaganda powers of the US government and the corporate-controlled media machine cannot transform an election held at gunpoint and under military occupation into a genuinely democratic event.

Initial reports on voter turnout were driven by the political imperative to put the best possible face on the election and influence public opinion in the United States, which is increasingly turning against the war. The turnout figure began at 90 percent plus—numbers reported, naturally enough, on Fox News. Then an Iraqi election official put the figure at 72 percent nationwide. This was subsequently lowered to 60 percent nationwide, then to 60 percent “in some areas.”

The compliant US media dutifully swallowed all these numbers in succession, never challenging their accuracy or questioning how each figure could be so quickly supplanted by a lower one as the day wore on.

The 72 percent figure, for instance, issued just before the polls closed, was inherently improbable, given that most polling places did not even open in the Sunni Triangle. With the vast majority of Sunnis, some 20-25 percent of Iraq’s people, boycotting the election, turnout among the rest of the population would have to be near-unanimous to bring the total up to 72 percent.

The reports on turnout were supplemented by television news footage of happy Iraqis celebrating their new-found freedom to vote, praising the American military, and thanking President Bush. There is ample reason to believe that these scenes were largely staged for the benefit of the media—like the scenes of Iraqis tearing down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square after the US invasion nearly two years ago. (Similar scenes were a hallmark of the Baathist dictatorship as well, with cheering crowds vowing to sacrifice their lives for Saddam.)

According to Robert Fisk of the Independent, a major British daily newspaper, “The big television networks have been given a list of five polling stations where they will be ‘allowed’ to film. Close inspection of the list shows that four of the five are in Shiite Muslim areas—where the polling will probably be high—and one in an upmarket Sunni area, where it will be moderate.” Sunni working class areas were entirely off limits, he noted.

In some cases, the media reports were literally military propaganda handouts. ABC News, for instance, reported thousands of voters in Fallujah, the city virtually destroyed by the US military onslaught last November. The source for this report of surprisingly high turnout was the US military command in the shattered city. Meanwhile, other news outlets put the turnout in Fallujah as minuscule, on a par with the other predominantly Sunni cities where few polls opened and few voters turned out.

The major theme of the media blitz was that the Iraqi people had thronged to the polls in defiance of threats of violence from the insurgent groups opposed to the US occupation. Such coverage ignores the largest purveyor of fear and violence in Iraq by far: the American military occupation, which leveled Fallujah and has blitzed many other Iraqi cities, including Ramadi, Samarra and Mosul, all centers of the Sunni population.

According to Fisk, one of the few credible reporters working in the region, the incessant raids by US ground forces have been supplemented by a new air war: “American air strikes on Iraq have been increasing exponentially. There are no ‘embedded’ reporters on the giant American air base at Qatar or aboard the US carriers in the Gulf from which these ever increasing and ever more lethal sorties are being flown. They go unrecorded, unreported, part of the ‘fantasy’ war which is all too real to the victims but hidden from us journalists. The reality is that much of Iraq has become a free-fire zone (for reference, see under ‘Vietnam’) and the Americans are conducting this secret war as efficiently and as ruthlessly as they conducted their earlier bombing campaign against Iraq between 1991 and 2003, an air raid a day, or two raids, or three.”

The cumulative weight of this violence and destruction is far greater than that of the terror bombs planted by Islamic groups like that allegedly headed by Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian supporter of Osama bin Laden. The US military has killed an estimated 100,000 Iraqis since Bush ordered the invasion in March 2003, a total which dwarfs the casualties caused by terrorist attacks on civilians.

Moreover, the US government and media routinely label all acts of armed resistance against the US invaders, and their stooges in the puppet regime, as “terrorist”—a verbal device designed to criminalize all Iraqi opposition to foreign occupation. In truly Orwellian fashion, the US military occupation, notwithstanding its tactics of torture and mass killing, is identified with “democracy,” while those Iraqis who fight against it are, by definition, enemies of democracy, “anti-Iraqi” elements, and even fascists.

There is evidence of direct intimidation of Iraqis by the US military in the course of election day. American soldiers were reported going through the city of Mosul, largely Sunni-populated and a center of insurgent resistance, and seeking out Iraqi non-voters, who could easily be identified by the absence of a semi-permanent ink stain on the thumb. Any Iraqi without such proof of voting was subjected to questioning as to why he had not voted—and no doubt, had his name entered on US intelligence lists of suspected supporters of the resistance, targeted for future arrest or attack.

More fundamentally, the entire election process is fatally tainted by the US military occupation. The regime that conducted the vote was appointed by the US occupation authorities, with the United Nations giving its rubber-stamp approval. The timing and procedures for the election were determined by US officials. And it was President Bush who decided earlier this month to reject the pleas of a majority of the Iraqi cabinet and oppose any postponement of the vote so as to allow for increased Sunni participation.

January 30 saw an unparalleled display of American military power on the streets of Baghdad, Mosul and other Iraqi cities. The 150,000 US troops were out in force, backed by hundreds of armored vehicles, and supplemented by another 150,000 US-trained Iraqi police and soldiers. Even the American media could not disguise the spectacle of Iraqis filing in to the polls through rolls of barbed wire, being frisked three separate times under the eyes of US snipers, while US helicopters and war planes roared overhead.

It was not a scene of freedom, but one of occupation and brutal subordination.

Within Iraq, the January 30 vote sets the stage for greater political conflicts and growing opposition to the US occupation regime. No official results are expected for at least a week, a delay which gives the US-backed regime plenty of time to manipulate the totals.

In the Shiite and Kurdish areas of the south and north, where a large voter turnout was reported, religious and tribal leaders are collaborating with the American occupation in return for promises of political power and financial concessions in a new US-backed regime. Their devil’s bargain may produce a regime headed by the United Iraqi Alliance, the main Shiite coalition, with Kurdish support—or they may be defrauded by their American overlords.

The week before the vote saw a rash of reports in the American press that Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s party was gaining. Given the absence of reliable polls or forecasts of voter turnout, such speculation reveals the hopes of the Bush administration, and its effort, in league with the media, to condition public opinion to accept a manipulated outcome engineered by Washington. Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord was supported and financed by the CIA for more than a decade, and the former Baathist enforcer is still the favorite of the White House—perhaps as the middleman in a coalition regime embracing both the Shiite and Kurdish parties.

Even should such a coalition emerge, facilitated by the Sunni boycott, Kurdish separatism could quickly break it up. The National Assembly elected Sunday is to draft a constitution in which Shiite demands for majority control will run up against demands for quasi-independence in the Kurdish provinces. An early flashpoint will be the status of Kirkuk, at the center of the rich northern oilfields, with its population evenly divided among Arabs, Turkomen and Kurds, but claimed by the Kurdish parties as part of the future region of Kurdistan.

Within the United States, the government-backed media blitz on the triumph of democracy in Iraq is aimed at intimidating opponents of the war and US occupation. But this propaganda campaign only intensifies the contradictions in the Bush administration’s political position. If the Iraqi people have “taken control of their country,” as the White House claims, why must 150,000 US troops remain there? Why can’t 25 million Iraqis defend themselves from the small bands of foreign terrorists and Saddam Hussein loyalists who supposedly make up the resistance?

“Democratization” is merely the latest pretext for the US occupation, following the now discredited claims that the US invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction or because of Saddam’s alleged connections with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001. The democracy pretext, too, will be exploded by events.

Link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/iraq-j31.shtml)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:25 AM
The 72 percent figure, for instance, issued just before the polls closed, was inherently improbable, given that most polling places did not even open in the Sunni Triangle. With the vast majority of Sunnis, some 20-25 percent of Iraq’s people, boycotting the election, turnout among the rest of the population would have to be near-unanimous to bring the total up to 72 percent.
.....
[b]According to Robert Fisk of the Independent, a major British daily newspaper, “The big television networks have been given a list of five polling stations where they will be ‘allowed’ to film. Close inspection of the list shows that four of the five are in Shiite Muslim areas—where the polling will probably be high—and one in an upmarket Sunni area, where it will be moderate.” Sunni working class areas were entirely off limits, he noted.
So first it&#39;s assumed that virtually all Sunni Arabs will not vote (the math doesn&#39;t work otherwise), then they quote Fisk pointing out that some will (and in fact some did, maybe 20%?)

It&#39;s probably true that the "falluja voting" story and maybe some others were staged for the cameras. Also, there&#39;s juggling in any voter turnout numbers: they are a percentage of registered voters who turned out, but in Mosul and possibly some other places, people were allowed to vote without being registered.

The other report, about food rations being used to coerce voter turnout, might be true...in places. Other kinds of intimidation might also be used.

But if you think forced turnout and staged stories are the only thing going on here, you&#39;re in denial. (Also, Vietnam analogies are overused and not so useful. The analogy to the British-organized election in early 20th-century Iraq is somewhat better...)

The reporter, Dahr Jamail doesn&#39;t really seem to think so. "Where there was a large turnout, the motivation behind the voting and the processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up north were voting for autonomy, if not independence. In the south and elsewhere Shias were competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member national assembly." he writes later in the article.

That&#39;s the reality that it&#39;s necessary to come to grips with: Kurdish and Shi&#39;a leaderships with strong support among the large majority of Iraq&#39;s population campaigned to turn out the vote. And they were fairly successful.

(And last year, Sistani and his supporters were successful in pressing the occupation to hold direct elections...something they initially didn&#39;t want to do anytime soon.)

The "insurgency" declared sectarian war on this development. They declared the majority of Iraq&#39;s population their enemies and targets. They have definitively isolated themselves from any potential support outside the Sunni Arab population.

Washington is not greatly worried, and has little reason to worry, about the hostility of the Sunni Arabs or the prospect of "civil war". Divide and rule is the name of the game.

And without tanks and helicopter gunships, the Sunni Arab forces have no prospect of overthrowing a government formed by Shi&#39;a and Kurdish parties enjoying the support of most of the population.

This is a new reality it&#39;s necessary to recognize.

[SubZ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:54 AM


We don&#39;t pick our leaders, nor do the Iraqi people (nor do any so-called democracies last I checked). Our leaders are picked for us from the ruling class or those in bed with the ruling class and then we get to decide which one of them we want. Even if this is not the PRIMARY reason people are not voting, it is a reason. This is not a freedom, it is a simple illusion.

Iagree whit you 100% on this.

[encephalon]

I can&#39;t even imagine how violent a reaction would come if americans just decided to vote on leaders outside of the established system. I guess it would probably lead to a civil war.

[PRC-UTE]

Took this from the 32csm message board.



Over 103 Attacks Mark Day Of US Enforced Elections (http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1107196892&user=32csm)
Posted on 31/1/2005 at 19:41:32 by Iraqi Resistance

For The 32CSM By Muhammad Abu Nasr.

Over 103 Attacks Mark Day Of US Enforced Elections
Jan 31, 2005

In a dispatch posted at 4:45pm Mecca time Sunday, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that a commander in the Iraqi puppet police had revealed shortly before that as of that time, a total of 103 so-called election stations had been attacked in Baghdad, Ba‘qubah, al-Basrah, and al-Anbar since 8am Sunday.

In an exclusive interview with Mafkarat al-Islam the Allawi police official said that a “large number” of election workers and Allawi policemen had been killed in the attacks. More than 40 US troops and 30 voters, most of them Shi‘i and Kurdish, had been reported killed in reports that were still incomplete.

The Allawi official said that in addition to the 103 attacks mentioned above there were other reports of attacks on election stations in Kirkuk, Irbil, and Samarra’ which had not yet been counted.

Three Religious Scholars Arrested For Urging Boycott Of Election.

US occupation forces arrested three well-known religious leaders in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi at about 11am Sunday, Baghdad time, on charges of inciting people to boycott the election being staged by the invaders.


Three US troops killed Patrolling Elections Stations In Ramadi

An Iraqi Resistance bomb exploded by a US patrol in the at-Ta’mim neighborhood east of ar-Ramadi at precisely 12 noon on Sunday, totally destroying a Humvee and killing three US troops aboard it. The correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam reported that he saw the gunfire on the vehicle. The patrol was “guarding the election.” The correspondent reported that the Americans had extracted the bodies of the US troops from the wrecked vehicle within five minutes.

Martyrdom Bomber Blows Up Three US Troops At Ramadi Polling Station

An Iraqi Resistance fighter wearing an explosive belt advanced towards an election station in the al-Iskan area of north ar-Ramadi on Sunday morning. The correspondent of Mafkarat al-Islam reported that witnesses who saw the incident said that the attacker, who pretended to be an ordinary person intent on voting, detonated his belt killing three US troops and wounding two more. Immediately after the blast, US forces sealed off the area and blocked access to journalists and cameramen. Witnesses said that one of those wounded in the blast had lost his foot.



In an exclusive interview with Mafkarat al-Islam the Allawi police official said that a “large number” of election workers and Allawi policemen had been killed in the attacks. More than 40 US troops and 30 voters, most of them Shi‘i and Kurdish, had been reported killed in reports that were still incomplete.

The Allawi official said that in addition to the 103 attacks mentioned above there were other reports of attacks on election stations in Kirkuk, Irbil, and Samarra’ which had not yet been counted.

Three Religious Scholars Arrested For Urging Boycott Of Election.

US occupation forces arrested three well-known religious leaders in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi at about 11am Sunday, Baghdad time, on charges of inciting people to boycott the election being staged by the invaders.


Three US troops killed Patrolling Elections Stations In Ramadi

An Iraqi Resistance bomb exploded by a US patrol in the at-Ta’mim neighborhood east of ar-Ramadi at precisely 12 noon on Sunday, totally destroying a Humvee and killing three US troops aboard it. The correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam reported that he saw the gunfire on the vehicle. The patrol was “guarding the election.” The correspondent reported that the Americans had extracted the bodies of the US troops from the wrecked vehicle within five minutes.

Martyrdom Bomber Blows Up Three US Troops At Ramadi Polling Station

An Iraqi Resistance fighter wearing an explosive belt advanced towards an election station in the al-Iskan area of north ar-Ramadi on Sunday morning. The correspondent of Mafkarat al-Islam reported that witnesses who saw the incident said that the attacker, who pretended to be an ordinary person intent on voting, detonated his belt killing three US troops and wounding two more. Immediately after the blast, US forces sealed off the area and blocked access to journalists and cameramen. Witnesses said that one of those wounded in the blast had lost his foot.

[PRC-UTE]

Didn&#39;t know that Katyushas were still in use; they threw everything at the occupation except for the kitchen sink. :lol:



Resistance Pounds US Positions In And Around Fallujah. (http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1107197463&user=32csm)
Posted on 31/1/2005 at 19:51:03 by Iraqi Resistance

For The 32CSM By Muhammad Abu Nasr.

Resistance Pounds US Positions In And Around Fallujah.
Jan 31, 2005

US troop concentrations around and inside Fallujah came under repeated and intense rocket barrages throughout the day Sunday. Eyewitnesses counted at least 50 rockets and missiles blasting into the US positions during the day.

The local Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent reported that ten 120mm mortar rounds and about twelve Katyushas in addition to Grad rockets blasted into US troop concentrations at various times during the day. The last attack was when two Grad rockets slammed into Americans in the camp in the agricultural area northeast of al-Fallujah. Rockets also hit the as-Sakaniyah area and the north of the al-Jawlan neighborhood.

Four 82mm mortar rounds blasted into a US command post on the railroad bridge in the city Sunday afternoon.

Resistance Attacks On Polling Stations In Fallujah

Witnesses reported hearing the sound of two explosions in Fallujah, the first at 2:30am and the second half an hour later.

So-called election centers in the as-Sumud Sports Club in the ad-Dubbat neighborhood, the al-Firdaws Mosque in the an-Nazal neighborhood, the al-Anbar School in the al-Jawlan neighborhood of al-Fallujah all were set up as polling stations by the US occupation forces on Sunday and all came under Resistance attack at about 7:30am, local time.

Meanwhile a powerful blast went off south of Fallujah in ‘Amiriyat al-Fallujah. The Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent said that there was virtually no movement in the streets of that area, as people were staying home anticipating Resistance attacks on US forces and the election stations they were guarding.

14 US Troops Killed In Fallujah Fighting

The Iraqi Resistance organization Base of the Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers reported that in battles they fought Saturday in the the al-‘Askari, ad-Dubbat neighborhoods near the as-Sumud Sports Club in al-Fallujah 14 US troops were killed and several vehicles destroyed.

Sources within the puppet forces in al-Fallujah told Mafkarat al-Islam that the Resistance stormed several eastern neighborhoods in the city and mounted martyrdom operations on US vehicles. US troops, the source said, killed 12 Resistance fighters and captured one fraternal Arab fighter. The Base of the Jihad confirmed the fighting in a communiqué but made no mention of its own losses. The al-Qa‘idah communiqué said that 14 US troops were killed and five vehicles destroyed, and indicated that more attacks would be forthcoming.

[Scottizzle]

Wait, didnt the US gov not allow outside monitoring of the elections in Iraq? I thought that was the case, but I read above someone stating that the UN watched, though I think this is incorrect.

I have a big feeling that just like the elections here in the US, the outcome of the elections in Iraq are completely controlled by Bush & Co.

[Cal]

Wait, didnt the US gov not allow outside monitoring of the elections in Iraq? I thought that was the case, but I read above someone stating that the UN watched, though I think this is incorrect.

I have a big feeling that just like the elections here in the US, the outcome of the elections in Iraq are completely controlled by Bush & Co.






I can confirm that there was a UN observer presence at the Iraqi elections.

[Conghaileach]

Some articles from the Information Clearing House:

The Vietnam Turnout was good as well (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7935.htm): On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading "US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror", the paper reported that the Americans had been "surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting".

Gorbachev Calls Iraqi Elections “Fake” (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/01/31/gorbacheviraq.shtml): In an interview with the Interfax news agency, he said the elections are “very far from what true elections are. And even though I am a supporter of elections and of the transfer of power to the people of Iraq, these elections were fake.”

Audio: British MP George Galloway: Elections in Occupied Iraq "Flawed Beyond Redemption" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7939.htm): This is a festival, a farce that&#39;s been held to validate the American-British invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[Cal]

British MP George Galloway: Elections in Occupied Iraq "Flawed Beyond Redemption": This is a festival, a farce that&#39;s been held to validate the American-British invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Well if George Galloway says it&#39;s flawed then it must be&#33;

(Tongue firmly in Cheek)