Iraqi Elections

[Noah]

Hello guys,

Firstly I would like to mention to the people whether it does not appear worrying to them that many of the parties who are favourites to win the elections in Iraq are 'Shia' or 'Suni' parties. They aren't even 'worker's' parties. The Shia and Suni denominations are both strong in Iraq and it makes me wonder whether these types of governments could lead to civil war if one government does not respect or maintain the needs of the other denomination?

The party with the suposedly largest support is the 'UNITED IRAQI ALLIANCE' and is a dominantly Shia government. What do people think of this, I mean you could say the Shia denomination was stricter and more extreme than the Suni denomination? Which means it is reactionary, therefore could we say Saddam Hussain was better than this 'to-be' democratically elected Shia government (or any religiously motivated governemnt that is elected)?

Also I would like to ask in general what the left thinks of the Iraqi elections?

Okay, so it is probable that a Shia/Suni government will be elected what about the smaller denominations like Mandaeans and Christians in Iraq? What about the needs of these denominations?

There is a high chance of an Islamic revolution in Iraq (like Iran) and this makes me worry, for the relatives I have in Iraq because in Iran our family friends who are not of Muslim faith (they are Mandaeans) are known as 'Kaffir' or rebels of the Muslim religion which means they are rejected from many aspects of society.

It is already bad in Iraq, a family wasn't wearing a headscarf in Iraq and she got battered by Iraqi Terrorists who called her a traitor of Islam, she was left to die but found by bypassers and survived. I am guessing this group is Shia as these beliefs are usually upheld more strictly by this denomination in Iraq, what if a Shia government is like this (like in Iran, correct me if you think i'm wrong)?

Cheers.

Please post your opinions!

NOAH.

[Sankara1983]

Iraq is turning into a sectarian/communalist bloodbath because the collaborationist parties are incapable of accomodating even the most basic demands of the working class. The Iraqi left has suffered from misleadership for decades, as evidenced by among other things the Communist Party's decision to run on a joint list with CIA asset Iyad Allawi.

[Guerrilla22]

On television pro US elements rave about the sucess of the Iraqi elections and warn that the if the US withdraws its troops now Iran will take control of the country. The Shiite Coalition that won the election has stong ties to the Iranian government, so Iran is going to get involved either way.

At the same time it turns out that the Sunnis are claimming massive election fraud. It seems the elctions didn't have this unifying effect that Washington thought it would. Not to mention the overall fact that the fact that national elections have taken place does not mean that Iraq is making progress, it appears quite obviously that the country has come apart at the seems and the situation is only getting worse.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:39 PM
Hello guys,

Firstly I would like to mention to the people whether it does not appear worrying to them that many of the parties who are favourites to win the elections in Iraq are 'Shia' or 'Suni' parties. They aren't even 'worker's' parties. The Shia and Suni denominations are both strong in Iraq and it makes me wonder whether these types of governments could lead to civil war if one government does not respect or maintain the needs of the other denomination?
Well, yes. To a degree, the civil war is already here. And it can expand even without actual persecution - to the formerly dominant Sunni Arab landlords and capitalists, the simple loss of their former power probably seems like persecution.

But the general tendency you describe, for all political representation to be based on ethnicity and religious sect, tends to fuel that kind of conflict. As we've seen in Lebanon for several decades.

And Washington's certainly encouraged that kind of politics from the beginning of the occupation. When they first set up the Governing Council, everyone on it was appointed as the representative of some sect or ethnic group.


The party with the suposedly largest support is the 'UNITED IRAQI ALLIANCE' and is a dominantly Shia government. What do people think of this, I mean you could say the Shia denomination was stricter and more extreme than the Suni denomination?

That seems like a sweeping generalization, to say about those denominations generally. The Sunni Taliban was, and the Sunni Saudi monarchy is, a lot stricter and more reactionary in its version of Sharia than the Shi'a Islamic Republic. Some of the Taliban-like elements of the Iraqi resistance are probably "stricter and more extreme" than the Shi'a theocratic UIA.

All that aside, the UIA electoral victory certainly does imply an increase in reactionary theocratic crap...not because it's Shi'a, but because it's fundamentalist.


Which means it is reactionary, therefore could we say Saddam Hussain was better than this 'to-be' democratically elected Shia government (or any religiously motivated governemnt that is elected)?

I can't see any point in saying that. It's neither possible nor desirable to return to that regime....and to restore it would require driving working people back out of politics through massive bloody repression. Since that was part of setting up that regime in the first place.


Okay, so it is probable that a Shia/Suni government will be elected what about the smaller denominations like Mandaeans and Christians in Iraq? What about the needs of these denominations?

This kind of situation of increasing religious sectarianism and fundamentalism is never good for the smaller religious or ethnic groups. They can't hope to compete in terms of armed force or sectarian militias; yet they are rarely left alone as civil war and ethnic cleansing escalate.


Also I would like to ask in general what the left thinks of the Iraqi elections?

I doubt if there's an answer to that, i.e. agreement on the left.

IMO it has to be acknowledged these elections were a victory for the occupation. People who previously boycotted participated...which means they believe the outcome of these U.S.-sponsored elections will likely hold, and don't want to be left out of it.

There was even voting in Ramadi this time, which there wasn't in the referendum last month or so. Either those groups which continue to reject the electoral process couldn't intimidate potential voters, or they didn't because they found themselves so isolated and rejected even by their potential supporters for their behavior during the referendum last month.

The complaints of fraud, etc., don't change that basic power reality.

[Noah]

***That seems like a sweeping generalization, to say about those denominations generally.***

Sorry, that's true, it was a big generalization to make.

***I can't see any point in saying that. It's neither possible nor desirable to return to that regime...***

I am not supporting Saddam but are you telling me, installing a fundamentalist government that probably has strong ties with Iran is desirable? I think I'd have the old regime back please because Iran is alot worse than Iraq was under Saddam.

***..and to restore it would require driving working people back out of politics through massive bloody repression. Since that was part of setting up that regime in the first place.***

I never said we should try to get the Ba'ath party in power, I was tring to make a comparison between Saddam Hussain's regime and the new government.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:44 AM
I am not supporting Saddam but are you telling me, installing a fundamentalist government that probably has strong ties with Iran is desirable?
No. And ironically, Washington is probably having some second thoughts too...based on the "strong ties with Iran" part.


I think I'd have the old regime back please

My point is, it's a fundamental error to act as if that's the choice. Neither is something to be fought for; both are to be fought against. Why stay within a framework of two evils, debating which is the lesser evil.


because Iran is alot worse than Iraq was under Saddam.

Can't agree with that. Working people have a lot more political space to discuss and organize in Iran than in Iraq under Saddam. At least somewhat more in Iran than in most countries in the region. There are also significant social and economic gains, even for women...many more women with college educations than under the shah, for example. Access to birth control and information about it has been expanded. Etc.

'Course, that's no credit to the "Islamic Republic" regime, it's a lasting aftereffect of the mass workers' uprising, general strikes, etc., which overthrew the shah. Stuff the ruling class and its "Islamic Republic" hasn't been able to roll back, since the working class as a whole hasn't been totally, bloodily crushed, as happened in Iraq with the Ba'athist counterrevolution for example.

There's been no such mass workers' uprising in Iraq recently and it's the last thing the UIA would want. So the comparison between the situation in Iran and the situation in Iraq is flawed....in the sense that the Iraqi theocracy will likely be worse. Less constrained by workers' gains and expectations.

[Noah]

Working people have a lot more political space to discuss and organize in Iran than in Iraq under Saddam.

I think what you mean is Muslim working people (who usually don't get their say recognised but still..), the Mandaean community and other minorities are not allowed to be politically involved or are obliged to not be political, for many reasons...but here are a few;

1) The letters, emails and phonecalls I receive from Mandaean relatives telling me how the government and many people discriminate against Mandean people on a daily basis because they see them as what is known as 'Kaffur' in Arabic, which means...'Traitor of Islam' or 'Inferior'.

2) The Iranian fundamentalist government don't want a 'Non-muslim' to get into the government or into politics because they know these politicians will support the minority religions and therefore these people in particular are restricted from organising or protesting.

3) And also, they can 'discuss' and organise with the risk of being hunted down by the various 'secret police' and as you know the Cheif Faghih has the over-ruling word, so it doesn't make no difference.


There are also significant social and economic gains, even for women


I disagree. Runaway inflation, massive unemployment, longer working hours, more homeless, and an ever increasing migration from the countryside to the cities. The depth of the economic misery for the vast majority of the masses cannot be compared even to the worst years of the last 3 decades.

Can you tell me what the social gains of women are in Iran please?


any more women with college educations than under the shah

Education for women has always been available in Iraq under Saddam.


Access to birth control and information about it has been expanded. Etc

That was also provided by doctors and other 'medical-related' people under Saddam.


'Course, that's no credit to the "Islamic Republic" regime, it's a lasting aftereffect of the mass workers' uprising, general strikes, etc., which overthrew the shah. Stuff the ruling class and its "Islamic Republic" hasn't been able to roll back, since the working class as a whole hasn't been totally, bloodily crushed, as happened in Iraq with the Ba'athist counterrevolution for example.

For your information the historical task of the worker's to create a democratic and free state for the workers, not to install the "Islamic Republic" regime, the lasting afteraffect is a result of the 'most barbaric inhuman repression against the oppressed and toiling masses'. Can you tell me when the worker's have had their say in Iran, the only person that gets their say in Iran is the established clerical dictator the 'Cheif Faghih', who seems to believe that they are 'divine' and no matter what any representative or election says, the Chief Faghih has the over ruling say.

Do you think the Iranian worker's organised, and struggled, just to install another dictator worse than the Shah? Do you think the worker's organised and struggled so they could install a "Republic" government in which is basically 'a clerical sect considering itself outside the "earthly" control of the masses has proclaimed itself the supreme ruler of the fate of society? .... I don't think the worker's did to be honest and I know they didn't perhaps you should read this; Iran (http://www.marxist.com/revolution-counterrevolution-iran120903.htm)

'Besides the rebuilt army and the secret police, there is now a whole network of the so-called "revolutionary institutions" (nahads) incomparable in their brutality to anything that existed before. The Islamic Pasdaran (Guardians) Army, the Imam's Komitehs (neighbourhood police), the Islamic Anjomans (associations operating in every factory or institution), the Islamic courts, the paramilitary forces of the hezbollah (supporters of the "Party of God"), etc., have together meted out the worst repression seen in recent history anywhere in the world. Any opposition to the "unity of the word" (the word of Khomeini) can result in the execution of the culprit. In the last two years alone, the Islamic regime has executed 50 times more socialists than the Shah's regime did in its 30 years of rule. The number of political prisoners has increased at least tenfold, mostly held without any charges and without any information about their whereabouts. The moral, psychological and physical destruction of political opponents practised by Khomeini's regime has scarcely been surpassed by Hitler.'

The Iranian working class don't back the government, they are terrified of it and probably brainwashed as well growing up with Islam affecting every part of their lives?


There's been no such mass workers' uprising in Iraq


..in the sense that the Iraqi theocracy will likely be worse. Less constrained by workers' gains and expectations.

So? The worker's in Iran have worse working conditions now than under the Shah, however, the Islamic Republic don't seem to worry about their worker's conditions or needs and there's been no mass uprising there?

[Guerrilla22]

I think we all can agree that both Saddam's regime and the theocratic regime of Iran are both examples of types of government that should be opposed. In the Iranian government you automatically get the shi ite clergy, under Saddam, you automatically got Saddam, no difference, except for ideology.

The intersting part of this whole situation will be seeing how the Iraqii government progresses throughout the years.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 11:57 PM
For your information the historical task of the worker's to create a democratic and free state for the workers, not to install the "Islamic Republic" regime,
Of course. But I'm attempting to analyze the course that the class struggle actually took in the real world, and the effects of those historic events. Counterposing what you want to the material world is a pretty pointless business.

Similarly, my comments were about the current situation "on the ground" in Iran. The relationship of class forces inside the country.

Whether you or I like the mullahs or not, and the programmatic manifestos of exile groups, are simply not relevant to that.

[Noah]

Of course. But I'm attempting to analyze the course that the class struggle actually took in the real world, and the effects of those historic events.

You also made it sounds like the Iranian working class support their government along with sarcasm in that particular comment.


Counterposing what you want to the material world is a pretty pointless business.

So now you are telling me, your prior comments are fact and so therefore it's pointless to comment on them? Or have I just misunderstood...


Similarly, my comments were about the current situation "on the ground" in Iran. The relationship of class forces inside the country.

Well, then, that's fair enough! :) But ofcourse the 'current situation'/s of Iraq and Iran is different, one is in war and the other isn't, war isn't usually desirable or positive for a country, especially when they're the victim, so you could say Iran's regime 'is better' (although I still disagree :) ).


Whether you or I like the mullahs or not, and the programmatic manifestos of exile groups, are simply not relevant to that.

Sorry I am confused what is 'that'.

[Enragé]

Iran is way better than iraq under saddam, as long as your not gay.

[Noah]

Iran is way better than iraq under saddam.....

I'm still really confused as to why people think that... :blink:

Perhaps you could say why? or corroborate what Severian has said.

[Enragé]

because there is less control through secret police, no (attempted) genocide, no gas attacks, more economic equality, less corruption

[Noah]

because there is less control through secret police

The secret police are very big in Iran still...there's not really much difference between the Iranian secret police and the Iraqi. The people of both nations are afraid of them.


no (attempted) genocide

Yes there is...Mandean people are killed/raped/tortured daily. It is very hard for people to hear about this because the Mandeans are a very small gnostic religion and aren't very organised, so the word never gets out but I get my information through relatives.


more economic equality

Got any sources for that?


less corruption

There was only corruption in the military. In Iran there is also alot of corruption. There wasn't that much criminality because all criminals were promptly executed in Iraq. Before the Americans came, yes, my relatives in Iraq were scared but it's nothing like it is now, opportunities were given to you if you 'supported' Saddam people get forced into the Ba'ath party and under the circumstances the communist movement was weak and small in Iraq so it was better just to 'get on with life' and you'd be fine..

So basically if you were with Saddam you were safe, I know it's not perfect (I mean even my dad fought in the communist movement to get rid of him and I would too) but in Iran if you're not a Muslim your whole life is affected by that it's terrible, 'Kaffurs' are constantly being to be wiped off the political scale in Iran, so that people who don't follow 'the Muslim code' don't try to change it.

[Enragé]

sooooooooo


how do you want to change all that (if its true)...?

btw kafirs have dhimmi status, no its not great, but its sumthin

also...there is some (limited) form of democracy

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:37 AM

Of course. But I'm attempting to analyze the course that the class struggle actually took in the real world, and the effects of those historic events.

You also made it sounds like the Iranian working class support their government along with sarcasm in that particular comment.
No, I didn't say that. But probably most Iranian workers do, in some sense, or accept it anyway, or it wouldn't have stayed in power this long. Many - maybe most - Iranian workers voted for Ahmadinejad, believing his populist demagogy, at least to the extent of hoping he would be a lesser evil than Rafsanjani, who was more privatization and austerity oriented.

It'd be interesting to see what Ahmadinejad's economic policies have been, and how working people have reacted to them. Haven't seen anything on that lately.

But what's that have to do with anything you posted, or that I posted earlier?

And yes, I was posting about facts. Which can be refuted, of course, but you need other facts for that, not just proclamations about what should be.

All the exile groups tend to be pretty out of touch with the situation on the ground in Iran. Heck, when these groups were in Iran for the years right after the 1979 Revolution, they were pretty out of touch with most working people even then.

In contrast, I've read stuff in the Militant written by communists living in Iran today; and I know there are people openly translating and publishing Marxist books there. I think they probably are in better touch with the situation than exiles are.

[Noah]

how do you want to change all that (if its true)...?

I never said I was going to change it I am simply proving a point.


btw kafirs have dhimmi status, no its not great, but its sumthin

Where is the justice in that? That's like me saying non-Arabs can have 'Vermin Status' it's 'not great, but its sumthin' isn't it?...That's just silly.


also...there is some (limited) form of democracy

It's a dictatorship, if some clerical ruler has the over-riding say despite elections then it is a dictatorship.


But probably most Iranian workers do, in some sense, or accept it anyway, or it wouldn't have stayed in power this long.

I agree with you to a degree there, Iranian workers are forced to accept it because if they don't they are 'enemies of Islam' and will suffer or die but they still aren't treated well by their 'government'. In Iraq, if you 'supported' Saddam (you didn't have to really but if you made it sound like so..) he would actually help you.


It'd be interesting to see what Ahmadinejad's economic policies have been, and how working people have reacted to them. Haven't seen anything on that lately.

Same here, actually i've only just started reading about Iran, so if you could recommend any sources / books that would be good :) .


And yes, I was posting about facts. Which can be refuted, of course, but you need other facts for that, not just proclamations about what should be.

That article I posted actually did refute 'facts' you posted.


All the exile groups tend to be pretty out of touch with the situation on the ground in Iran. Heck, when these groups were in Iran for the years right after the 1979 Revolution, they were pretty out of touch with most working people even then.


This is similar with the Iraqi communist party, it didn't take into accord what the worker's believed and so on...


In contrast, I've read stuff in the Militant written by communists living in Iran today; and I know there are people openly translating and publishing Marxist books there. I think they probably are in better touch with the situation than exiles are.

Which Militant article is that, was it recent?

[Enragé]

what i meant with greater econ. equality is that islamic economy in essence (dont know if they follow it) is sort of like semi-communism.


Where is the justice in that? That's like me saying non-Arabs can have 'Vermin Status' it's 'not great, but its sumthin' isn't it?...That's just silly.

no it would be like giving non-arabs "protected"(which dhimmi means)-status and then taking away a few rights but ensuring most...yea its not great but its something.
People of the scripture (jews, christians) have special status yaddayaddayadda, point is they are not being persecuted.


It's a dictatorship, if some clerical ruler has the over-riding say despite elections then it is a dictatorship

then you should call the US a dictatorship as well cuz the corporate world has an over-riding say in everything (despite elections)

[Enragé]

look. the guardian council is like the US surpreme court, but instead of checking if laws are correct in regard to the constitution, the GC does the same in regard to morality

(i hate playing the devi's advocate)

[Noah]

what i meant with greater econ. equality is that islamic economy in essence (dont know if they follow it) is sort of like semi-communism.

In 'essence' it might be...but it's not actually and I wouldn't even call it Semi-Communism!!


no it would be like giving non-arabs "protected"(which dhimmi means)-status and then taking away a few rights but ensuring most...yea its not great but its something.

Blacks were ensured protection in America and considered 'free', except we all knew that, that wasn't really the case. The same applies here, they are not protected.


People of the scripture (jews, christians) have special status yaddayaddayadda, point is they are not being persecuted.

They are not directly victims of some sort of genocide but they still suffer, discrimination and daily abuse from the government.


then you should call the US a dictatorship as well cuz the corporate world has an over-riding say in everything (despite elections)

The Republicans and Democrats are the same thing, so you could say they're just an elected dictatorship really?


look. the guardian council is like the US surpreme court, but instead of checking if laws are correct in regard to the constitution, the GC does the same in regard to morality

'In regard to morality' but the ultimately the Chief Faghih as the power to change or do anything.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:26 PM
what i meant with greater econ. equality is that islamic economy in essence (dont know if they follow it) is sort of like semi-communism.
At most, some Iranian economic policies are sort of social-democratic. You can't even say that much about other "Islamic" regimes.

And the reason some industries are nationalized, there are some social programs benefitting working people, etc. has nothing to do with Islamic doctrines. In the modern world Islam like other religions serves the interests of the propertied classes, regardless of what the Koran may say. (Christianity's more communist than any other religion, if you look at words in a book.)

It's because: 1)Nationalized industry sometimes serves the needs of bourgeois nationalist regimes in building up national industry and 2) the Islamic republic came to power in the wake of a massive workers' uprising which overthrew the shah, and needs to placate the workers.


then you should call the US a dictatorship as well cuz the corporate world has an over-riding say in everything (despite elections)

The U.S. is a bourgeois democracy where the upper class rules through elected officials. In Iran, the upper class rules partly through elected officials but mostly through unelected mullahs. I wouldn't call that a dictatorship exactly, since dictatorship usually implies one-man rule, but it's more of a theocracy than a democracy.

The U.S. Supreme Court is appointed by elected officials. The Guardian Council and Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) are not. And they have more power than the elected officials.

Most importantly, the degree of free speech, freedom to organize, etc. for working people in Iran is far less than in the U.S. and other bourgeois democracies. I said earlier there was more political space for working people in Iran today than in Iraq under Saddam....but that just means there's more than nothing. Almost no open political opposition or criticism was possible under the Saddam Hussein regime.

I could also say there's more political space in Iran today than under a number of other regimes in the region, but again that's not saying much.

***

Noah, no regime rules successfully by repression alone. A regime also needs to maintain a perception of legitimacy, in one way or another. And events in Iran, particularly, can't be explained by repression alone. When workers turn out for elections, and vote for whoever's perceived as the lesser evil - Khatami one time, Ahmadinejad another - it's not because they literally have a gun to their heads in the voting booths.

And the kinds of repression the regime's typically deployed against demonstrations - thugs with iron bars, not troops with machine guns - wouldn't be sufficient if the working class was universally full of pure hatred for the regime. Nothing would be - the workers swept away the shah's regime despite being shot down in the streets, and they remember that they were able to do so.

But the working class has only occasionally turned out to support student protests against the regime and for democratic rights. (When they have, the regime has had to give ground.)

The problem is not simply one of repression, but one of the degree of workers' class-consciousness like anywhere else. The regime has not wholly lost all perceived legitimacy, and there's the problem of what is the alternative. What are you for, what is the leadership of the revolt, what kind of new regime should there be. The working class hasn't reached any conscious consensus on that, even as far as a general direction.

I did a search of the Militant's site, and found one report written by someone living in Iran, there's probably more I didn't find.

Report from Tehran, 2000 (http://www.themilitant.com/2000/6410/641073.html)

A report on the distribution of Marxist books at the 2005 Tehran international bookfair (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6925/692556.html) There've been many others over the years. Some of these reports have mentioned the publication of Marxist classics by Iranian publishers, and the distribution of Pathfinder Press and other Marxist books at other bookfairs and bookstores around Iran. A symptom of what's possible under the Islamic Republic which wouldn't have been possible under the shah or Saddam Hussein.

Not written from within Iran, but more importantly This kind of open mass action by workers (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6528/652802.html) wouldn't have been possible under the shah or the Hussein regime either - without being gunned down in the street.

[Enragé]

yeh i agree severian

[Enragé]

try and convince a dude called "Rehmat" of what you said at www.islamicdigest.net (go to the forums)

[Rummy Deuce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 08:03 AM
On television pro US elements rave about the sucess of the Iraqi elections and warn that the if the US withdraws its troops now Iran will take control of the country. The Shiite Coalition that won the election has stong ties to the Iranian government, so Iran is going to get involved either way.

At the same time it turns out that the Sunnis are claimming massive election fraud. It seems the elctions didn't have this unifying effect that Washington thought it would. Not to mention the overall fact that the fact that national elections have taken place does not mean that Iraq is making progress, it appears quite obviously that the country has come apart at the seems and the situation is only getting worse.
Can you explain how, exactly, it has gotten worse? And from what point? In what aspects? What is the standard?

If major news sources are accurate, bombings and insurgent attacks seem to have diminished since the elections.

[Enragé]

well i watch the major news sources as well, they have said no such thing. It is however true that they have been covering the mess over there lately, but this was also the case before the elections, and only shows that CNN and FOX are getting more and more tired of iraq.

[Enragé]

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
1-2006 2 0 0 2 0.67 3
12-2005 68 0 0 68 2.19 31
11-2005 84 1 1 86 2.87 30
10-2005 96 2 1 99 3.19 31
9-2005 49 3 0 52 1.73 30
8-2005 85 0 0 85 2.74 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
6-2005 78 1 4 83 2.77 30
5-2005 80 2 6 88 2.84 31
4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30
3-2005 35 1 3 39 1.26 31
2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28
1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.1 31
12-2004 72 1 3 76 2.45 31
11-2004 137 4 0 141 4.7 30
10-2004 63 2 2 67 2.16 31
9-2004 80 3 4 87 2.9 30
8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.42 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31
6-2004 42 1 7 50 1.67 30
5-2004 80 0 4 84 2.71 31
4-2004 135 0 5 140 4.67 30
3-2004 52 0 0 52 1.68 31
2-2004 20 1 2 23 0.79 29
1-2004 47 5 0 52 1.68 31
12-2003 40 0 8 48 1.55 31
11-2003 82 1 27 110 3.67 30
10-2003 44 1 2 47 1.52 31
9-2003 31 1 1 33 1.1 30
8-2003 35 6 2 43 1.39 31
7-2003 48 1 0 49 1.58 31
6-2003 30 6 0 36 1.2 30
5-2003 37 4 0 41 1.32 31
4-2003 74 6 0 80 2.67 30
3-2003 65 27 0 92 7.67 12
Total 2182 98 103 2383 2.33 1021

http://icasualties.org/oif/

as you can see, there is no decrease of attacks at all.

[Rummy Deuce]

It seems that the price has been worth it:

The people with the most information about the situation in Iraq - the Iraqi people - are optimistic.

51% of Iraqis say Iraq is on the right track. In July of 2003, before the recall election, 24% of Californians thought California was on the right track.
62% of Iraqis think the new government has done a good job since the transfer of power.
87% believe that Iraqi security forces can maintain security without the Coalition Forces.
70% of Iraqis say that they would support a family member in a decision to join the Iraqi security services.

[Enragé]

and a majority of the iraqis want the US and its partners to FUCK OFF.

Also a majority approves of the goals of the resistance (the violent and non-violent part)

Also, many support the resistance outright

[Ownthink]

87% believe that Iraqi security forces can maintain security without the Coalition Forces.
Pure hilarity. That is so totally off it isn't even funny. There is only 1 batallion of IP/ING trained to hold its own, the rest aren't even close. I suggest you see Gen Abizaid's opinion of "how it's going" (and it ain't good!)

[Guerrilla22]

The insuregency would die down if the US were to pull out, attacks keep happening because the people are pissed that they are being occupied, its like a kid poking ata hornet's nest with a stick and wondering why he's being stung.

[Noah]

Noah, no regime rules successfully by repression alone.

No, I never said that but repression plays a big part in alot of dictatorships.



When workers turn out for elections, and vote for whoever's perceived as the lesser evil - Khatami one time, Ahmadinejad another - it's not because they literally have a gun to their heads in the voting booths.

What difference is there between these two leaders they're both largely repressive for most proletriats whether you support them or not. I agree it is legitimate but it doesn't make that much difference and the social aspects of the proletriat hasn't improved much. The majority of 'Islamic Regimes' don't need to be 'too' legitamate because they use 'Islam's code' to control people. Getting to the point Saddam Hussain actually gave you a better life if you 'support' him.


And the kinds of repression the regime's typically deployed against demonstrations - thugs with iron bars, not troops with machine guns - wouldn't be sufficient if the working class was universally full of pure hatred for the regime. Nothing would be - the workers swept away the shah's regime despite being shot down in the streets, and they remember that they were able to do so.

I think what is different this time is the government's control over people through religion, I think many Muslim people are happier/'bear with them' because their government 'supports' Islam despite their poor social conditions and in alot of Arabic/Persian countries (from personal experience) I have found out the religion plays a BIG part in many people's lifes, for example in Iraq, if a woman gets raped then they voluntarily ask for a 'Muslim Ritual Killing' (although there is no such thing).


But the working class has only occasionally turned out to support student protests against the regime and for democratic rights. (When they have, the regime has had to give ground.)

You must also remember the working class is also much more scared to take part in this activity because of the secret police (which is larger than it was under the Shah).

Also they may have given 'ground' but many students were chain murdered for example the event of 'July 9, 1999'. Where many writer's and protests were being killed..


The problem is not simply one of repression, but one of the degree of workers' class-consciousness like anywhere else. The regime has not wholly lost all perceived legitimacy, and there's the problem of what is the alternative. What are you for, what is the leadership of the revolt, what kind of new regime should there be. The working class hasn't reached any conscious consensus on that, even as far as a general direction.

I agree, this is a problem which many countries face but I think class conciousness, will eventually come..


A symptom of what's possible under the Islamic Republic which wouldn't have been possible under the shah or Saddam Hussein.

You could still get books through communists in Iraq and through other 'underground' ways, I know it's not as convenient as a book fair though. But for the reasons above I still think the Ba'ath party is better than the Islamic Regime in Iran in the Saddam Hussein era.