Thoughts about the Iraqi election - why are they against it?

[jumper03 0]

Maybe this has been put out there before but with the amount of traffic in SC I may have missed it so apologies.

With the upcoming elections in Iraq, I can't help but wonder why the insurgents are stepping up the attacks. Can they really be afraid of democracy? What if the reason is much simpler and rooted in hate? So how about this - The one thing islamic fundamentalists all say is that the US is the great Satan. They all want to fight us, to hurt us, to do us damage. To do that, they have to come to the US, which after 9/11 isn't all that easy. But once we invaded Iraq, we just set ourselves up in their backyard where they could fight us at their whim. Iraq is easy to get into, they blend in and we are all over the place so they can take their shots at the great satan. If elections go forward and we pull out, it will once again be difficult to fight the US.

Could the reason they are wanting to delay the elections be as simple as they want us to stay so they can keep fighting the great satan? To keep trying to bring us down?

I dunno, but just something that popped in my head recently that I thought I'd share.

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[mr2mk1g 10]

It could be that they don't care much about whatever elections we're holding, they just want to get us out of their country.

It could be that they don’t trust us to hold open elections and think we’ll just install a stooge?

It could be that they don’t want an open election as the majority of insurgents are suuni and thus in a minority who will be under-represented by an open election.

It’s probably all of the above and a few others to boot.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

It could be that they don't care much about whatever elections we're holding, they just want to get us out of their country.

It could be that they don’t trust us to hold open elections and think we’ll just install a stooge?

It could be that they don’t want an open election as the majority of insurgents are suuni and thus in a minority who will be under-represented by an open election.

It’s probably all of the above and a few others to boot.

Oh, really? Read my thread on Iraqi Women.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I can't help but wonder why the insurgents are stepping up the attacks

The question is about the views of Iraqi insurgents. What proportion of Iraqi insurgents do you suppose are women? Remembering that this is a staunchly fundamentalist Islamic movement where women's place is in the home. I'm sure there are some female insurgents... but I'm guessing it's kinda hard to aim an RPG in a burka.

That Iraqi women are looking to the future is good... it doesn't necessarily correlate to what the insurgents are thinking however.

Your editorial at the end of your women thread would surely come under my "plus a few others to boot"... one that I tend to agree is quite possible.

[shropshire 0]

This is a very complex question (I dont have an answer and I doubt if aanyone does).

The complexity is made up of many factors .. the THEY, that you talk about are a diverse collection of different peoples, so getting a concensus was always going to be difficult trying to impose one is at least doubly difficult.

Then there's the invasion of their country. Their houses are destroyed and their kids killed... yeah they're going to really love anyone that does that, even if they are told that it's for their own good!

Put your self in their shoes - what would you think? Who would you trust?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

Then there's the invasion of their country. Their houses are destroyed and their kids killed... yeah they're going to really love anyone that does that, even if they are told that it's for their own good!

Put your self in their shoes - what would you think? Who would you trust?

I agree. Plus they know that most likely whoever is elected will be a candidate at least somewhat backed by the US government, so be somewhat obliged.

Why would anyone want to be forced into doing anything? From their eyes, we go in, destroy their homes, overthrow the government that they and their culture are accustomed to, we force upon them a new form of government that is completely foreign to their cultural way of thinking, and then make them engage in voting. No one ever wants to do something when they are obligated to do it.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Then there's the invasion of their country.

Who's country? It was my understanding that many of the insurgents are not Iraqi Nationals but fundamentalists from all over the ME.

Do we really know the make up of the insurgents? If they are all iraqi, then my hypothesis is bollox.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I can't help but wonder why the insurgents are stepping up the attacks

The question is about the views of Iraqi insurgents. What proportion of Iraqi insurgents do you suppose are women? Remembering that this is a staunchly fundamentalist Islamic movement where women's place is in the home. I'm sure there are some female insurgents... but I'm guessing it's kinda hard to aim an RPG in a burka.

That Iraqi women are looking to the future is good... it doesn't necessarily correlate to what the insurgents are thinking however.

Oh, but I think it does have a lot to do with the terrorists' mindset. I believe they want nothing more than to go back to Islamic Fundamentalism. I'm not saying abrigation of womens rights is a foremost reason, but I think it fits into the overall picture of what the terrorists view of what an ideal Islamic Society should be.

[shropshire 0]

You are probably correct in the assertion that some (I wouldn't say many because it's not publicaly known about the actual make up of the defending force(s)) are from outside of Iraq.... but that shouldn't come as too much of a surprise - Friend Helping Friend, Alies if you like - for example a coalition of the willing (works both ways).

Dont get me wrong I'm not suporting or advocating their actions but I'm trying to look at the situation objectively (tricky but I'm giving it a go).

There's plenty of presendence for outside assistance in times of trouble ...
France help the Early Americans have a bit of a pop (resistance) at us Brits.
The Allies in WWII gave assistance to the French Resistance fighters against German invasion.
The insurgants in Iraq resisting an invasion from, well us (not US!) etc... ect...

It's not so different really - Only your/Our perspective has changed.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

geez...more arguments along the colonialist trek.

total BS. The leaders of the insurgents are against elections because in anything remotely resembling a democracy, they lose power.

The power structure of the Middle East fears democracy because they have been living high on the petrol dollars while the masses have been suffering. So instead they present the bogeyman of the Yankees and the Jews as the reason for this hard life.

The West has played into this because of the desire for stable, if harsh, leadership to guarantee the consistent supply of oil.

[chris666 0]

Quote

Quote

Then there's the invasion of their country. Their houses are destroyed and their kids killed... yeah they're going to really love anyone that does that, even if they are told that it's for their own good!

Put your self in their shoes - what would you think? Who would you trust?

I agree. Plus they know that most likely whoever is elected will be a candidate at least somewhat backed by the US government, so be somewhat obliged.

That recalls me the Afghan scenario..meet Hamid Karzaï, democratic leader elected by the afghans..who previously worked for ...an american gas company...which tried for years before 2001 to reach an agreement with talebans to build a pipeline/gasoline throughout the country, unsuccessfully, talebans been seen untrustful..and the first treaty signed by Karzaï was setting the construction of the gasoline. But that was probably the "best economical decision for the country"...bringing democracy to the world....LOL!!

[dorbie 0]

Ahhh so according to you Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11 or the Taliban harboring al Qaida and it was all just a cynical attempt to build a pipeline. When it's not about oil it's about moving oil LOL.

So again by your reckoning their leader is a puppet we managed to persuade the Afghan people to vote for!!. Heaven forbid that the leader of a free country should move quickly to get the economy going.

Thankfully the Afghans are free and better off now than they were before and they get to decide not you or I. You can rant all you like but if you want to affect any change you'd better go there and persuade the Afghans.

Of course your post has little to do with Afghanistan and is all about bashing America and the current administration for doing a great thing in the face of an appalling attack. It's called a win, win situation but that depends on which side you really support.

[slug 1]

Quote

Maybe this has been put out there before but with the amount of traffic in SC I may have missed it so apologies.

With the upcoming elections in Iraq, I can't help but wonder why the insurgents are stepping up the attacks. Can they really be afraid of democracy? What if the reason is much simpler and rooted in hate? So how about this - The one thing islamic fundamentalists all say is that the US is the great Satan. They all want to fight us, to hurt us, to do us damage. To do that, they have to come to the US, which after 9/11 isn't all that easy. But once we invaded Iraq, we just set ourselves up in their backyard where they could fight us at their whim. Iraq is easy to get into, they blend in and we are all over the place so they can take their shots at the great satan. If elections go forward and we pull out, it will once again be difficult to fight the US.

Could the reason they are wanting to delay the elections be as simple as they want us to stay so they can keep fighting the great satan? To keep trying to bring us down?

I dunno, but just something that popped in my head recently that I thought I'd share.

Jump

Hi

From what I'm reading the insurgents are for the most part Iraqi's.

My guess is that the insurgents are made up of two goups.

The first group was in the numerical minority but had priviliged positions over the majority due to their association with Mr SH. If there's a election based on one person one vote the people who were in power will lose since their outnumberd 3-4 to 1.

The second group are uneducated, poor folks that are either doing their thing for money, religious or brainwashed by anti us, zionist propaganda.

The sooners theirs a election, and their troops can keep the peace the sooner we can leave. The republican guard is going to be a tough nut to crack for new iraqi troops.

R.I.P.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Thankfully the Afghans are free and better off now

- Yeah Right! Outside of places like Kahbul the elected governmanet has no control whatso ever, Warloards/criminals and brigands rule their roosts. Please dont confuse free elections in some cities as a model for the whole country.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Thankfully the Afghans are free and better off now

- Yeah Right! Outside of places like Kahbul the elected governmanet has no control whatso ever, Warloards/criminals and brigands rule their roosts

Would you agree that [I]some free elections in Afghanistan are better than no free elections in Afghanistan?

. . =(_8^(1)

[ryoder 1,590]

The insurgents are primarily Sunnis. Sunnis are a minority, but since Saddam was Sunni, they controlled the country before he US invaded. The majority of the population is Shiite, and generally in favor of the elections and will win most elections due to their sheer numbers. So the Sunni insurgents are doing their best to prevent the elections from happening.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[shropshire 0]

No, better not to be in that position in the first place. The country is a lot less stable now than before our attack.
We do a lot more de-stabalising that we ever do the contary! - Not good in my book.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[miked10270 0]

I've said it before...

Iraq is an artificial country! the borders were drawn without regard to the ethnic composition of the country. You could liken it to suddenly re-drawing France's border to include everything south of Liverpool and The Wash, or re-drawing Mexico's border to include Texas, New Mexico, Arizona & California south of LA!!!

You can also liken the Iraqi, Iranian, Turkish & Kurdistan borders to Yugoslavia (another artificial country whose drawn borders didn't take account of ethnicity). Look what happened there when "The Strong Man" (Tito & Communism) left a power vacuum!

I suspect that "peace" in the middle east will only come long after a fundamental re-drawing of the national borders to fit the ethnic & religious geopolitic.

In the meantime, from an "insurgent's point of view... "Fishing is best done in troubled waters!"

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[slug 1]

Hi Mike

Affirmative

Was it the brits who decided where the borders were in Iraq?

R.i.P.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I suspect that "peace" in the middle east will only come long after a fundamental re-drawing of the national borders to fit the ethnic & religious geopolitic.

Or alternatively, but not imposing artificial boundaries at all ... especially when they're none of our business.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[miked10270 0]

It was the British & Americans who "drew" the borders in the Middle East post 1918. Iran, Iraq, South-East Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Palestine ALL had their borders as drawn by British & American civil servants!

Incidentally, straight lines on a map are a dead giveaway!

Unfortunately, this was at a time when ethnicity was understood to consist of "civilised people" (empire & successful former colonials - who drink cocktails) & "fuzzy-Wuzzys" (who drink petrol, don't you know).

Interestingly, it was also the British & Americans who raised the whole "Arab Consciousness" thing while grubbing for allies in 1915-18!

Woodrow Wilson, Churchill, David Lloyd George, and their agents (T.E. Lawrence is the most famous example) have a lot to answer for.

Perhaps it's somehow fitting that it's the descendants who are dying in the attempt to clean up the mess. The whole "sins of the fathers" thing springs to mind.

The problem now is that while all mid-east countries see a need for borders to be redrawn, no-one is willing to actually lose any land or power.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[rhino 0]

Quote

"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.

"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

This is why... This is Al Zardickheads viewpoint.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.

"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

This is the "Theocratic" point of view. "God" is all powerful, and laws MUST be based on the true religious faith. A such the church IS also the state. With the relatively lax Judeo-Christian religion the co-existence of Church & State is easy. In a more strict religion the choice becomes far more stark. In dealing with a strict religion such as Islam this should be borne in mind.

In a "free" Iraqi election, the Shi'ite majority will be overwhelming and will be a de-facto democratic vote against democracy! The last time I remember this happening was in Germany in 1933!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Michele 1]

Mike, the Balfour Declaration was one of the "things" OBL has been ranting about for years, even though the State of Israel was not established for many years and another world war. Do you think this factors into the Al Zarqari et al ranting too?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[miked10270 0]

The Balfour Declaration (IMHO) was little more than another example of the allied policy during WWI of gaining "friends" in the region by raising national identity. Further, it was issued in response to a question from the VERY influential Lord Rothschild. One wonders if the most active Zionist of the time; Weissman (?) would have got such a response from Balfour & if he did, would it have been made so public?

Bear in mind that Palestine was a British protectorate from 1918 - 1946. During this time local Jews and Muslims coexisted peacefully apart from occasional attempts to evict the British. Had the Balfour Declaration been anthing other than a placebo to Rothschild then the state of Israel could have been created far more easily & smoothly in 1920-21 than it was in 1948.

That said, from a suitably paranoid (Islamic violent fundamentalist) point of view, what is in fact a placatory written answer to a question can be inflated into a "statement of intent"! Particularly when the object is NOT to study the history in an impartial way, but to inflame hatred.

Regards,

Mike.

Edited to clarify "Gaining friends in the region"... Meaning "Making more enemies for your enemy to fight".

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.