| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Kurds win in 5 Iraqi provinces |
| 2005-02-18 |
| Edited for UNHCR spin Shiites and Kurds, already poised to dominate Iraq's parliament after the January 30 election, also notched up crucial wins in the provincial polls held the same day. Lists presented by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq triumphed in eight out of 18 provinces, mainly in the Shiite-dominated southern and central regions, according to official results released Thursday, "We obtained a majority in five provinces, including Baghdad, in the Council's name alone and in three other provinces where we had alliances," said SCIRI official Reda Jawad Takki. "Two-and-a-half million Iraqis voted for the Council," he said, out of just over eight million voters. The two main Kurdish parties, who took second place in parliament with 75 seats, claimed victory in the three Kurdish provinces of Arbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniyah. But they also won in the provinces of Tamim and Nineveh, upsetting the balance and possibly leading to further tensions in the ethnic tinderbox of northern Iraq. UN doesn't like uppity Kurds voting. Sets a bad example. The alliance of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party obtained 58 percent of votes in Tamim, home to the multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk. Kurds claim Kirkuk as the capital of their region after it was heavily Arabised under Saddam Hussein. With their absolute majority, the Kurds will be able to take decisions at the provincial level without needing to consult fellow Arab and Turkmen council members, raising fears of possible armed confrontation. "The situation has reached boiling point for Arabs, because they've been patient for a long time," said the leader of the Arab Gathering, Ghassan Mezher al-Assi, apparently referring to Kurdish moves to retake power in the area since the US-led invasion almost two years ago. Nineveh has traditionally been controlled by Sunni Arabs, although it is also home to several Kurdish areas. It also contains Mosul, which means the Kurds now control the city politically. They already control half of it militarily. This is one of the big ignored stories in Iraq. See previous story. Kurdish parties do not hide the fact that they would like those areas to be part of their autonomous region. But I am sure they would settle for the whole province. Sunnis, who largely boycotted the vote, won only two provinces: the rebel heartland of Al-Anbar west of Baghdad and Salaheddin, where Saddam's hometown of Tikrit is found, north of the capital. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #2 Ptah, I agree with you're assesment of Sistani so far. He left Fallujah thereby giving tacit approval to the U.S. to eliminate Al Sadr. He didn't say much at all but his actions spoke volumnes. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-02-18 12:46:45 PM |
| #1 With their absolute majority, the Kurds will be able to take decisions at the provincial level without needing to consult fellow Arab and Turkmen council members, raising fears of possible armed confrontation. "The situation has reached boiling point for Arabs, because they’ve been patient for a long time," said the leader of the Arab Gathering, Ghassan Mezher al-Assi, apparently referring to Kurdish moves to retake power in the area since the US-led invasion almost two years ago. It's easy for the Arabs to be patient while they're top dog, with everyone else a Dhimmini. The whole world is peachy keen, then. But let the NATURAL MAJORITY arise, exercise their rights, and put the Arabs into a position to have to EARN, rather than TAKE, what they want, and "arab patience" suddenly gets thin. The apostle Paul said that it is not a virtue or a credit to be patient while suffering the punishment one deserves for ones crimes. If there has been anyone who's been patient, it has been the Shias and, to a lesser extent, the Kurds. The existance of Kurdish terrorist groups who attacked Turkish civilians instead of battling Saddam directly is a taint on their history. I know of no Iraqui Shia insurgency groups (plenty of Iranian shia terrorist groups). Condi or her male assistant should visit Sistani and tell him we're going to stop Iranian nuke aspirations, but not invade the country. Tell him we'll back up any domestic revolution in Iran that he endorses, up to and including air and logistical support, if the Iranian people and the regular army provide the boots to fight the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (AKA neo-brownshirts/neo-Nazi SS). This may be tough, since the Shiites believe that the son follows the father, and so are convinced that Dubya will let the Iranians hang out to dry like his dad did to them when THEY revolted against Saddam. He outranks every Iranian Mullah by Shiite religious standards, and EVERYONE knows it. one word from him, and the balloon goes up. I am aware of rantburgers who are very skeptical of religious leaders with political influence. Sistani's behavior has been, up until now, exemplary and supportive. Sure, sure, occasionally he'll say something that sets y'all a-howling, but ignore what he SAYS and watch what he DOES ("Deeds, not words"-Ronald Reagan). Leave the belief in "well laid, well hidden, secret, and nefarious agendas, plans, and conspiracies" held by those you disagree with to the moonbats and the tin-foil-hat crowd. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-02-18 10:26:29 AM |