| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| The Independent: Shrieking Hysteria Over Iraqi Elections |
| 2005-12-21 |
| Iraq is disintegrating... Funny, in a pathetic kind of way. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #20 just a bunch of corrupt politicians looking to be bought off by Ottowa Good point. But I think they truly want independence this time. In any case, should they win the next referendum, they're in a win-win situation. If they fail to gain any concessions from Ottawa they can easily succeed on their own. As an aside, if Quebec leaves, they will take with them more than half of Canada's officer corps (of the Canadian Armed Forces). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-12-21 22:53 |
| #19 Aris-You are right that religious nutcases may be getting stronger in Iraq, just like they are stronger in Iran, but it is for one reason-THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES CHOSE. People in the ME have just debarked onto a sea of hard lessons, and it's gonna be a long and painful but necessary journey with this as the destination: they can't go around blaming others for the things they themselves cause. In the case of Iran, that means that the majority of the people chose a Shia president-and if that means burqas, chopped off hands, no music, no art, no dissent, no religion but Mo's, destroyed relations with the west, they have no one but themselves to blame for it. In Iraq, it may or may not turn out that way, but it's the same concept. Invasion, no invasion, occupation, no occupation, puppet government, propped up government, or elected government-the lesson is the same; in our generation's time, people in the ME are learning accountability for their choices. And I don't mean that smugly, sadistically or punitively. It's meant in the same way that a person with experience at something can do nothing to eliminate the learning curve of someone with no experience at something. As a Greek citiizen, you have knowledge of the value and responsibility of democracy; as a US citizen, I have it, too. They have little to no experience with it; they are like a person trying to invent something and not addressing a law of physics that are needed to make the invention work-try/fail, try/fail, try/fail-sooner or later, one has to finally step back and say, wait, I need to rethink this. People in that part of the world have looked at their leaders as Gods-larger than life, meant to be feared, with magical powers to solve all problems-SOMEONE ELSE TO CONTROL THEIR DESTINIES. I think we all agree that this hero worship will get people in the ME nowhere. It is a notion that needs to die for people in the Middle East to have better lives. When people there learn that their futures are direclty related to their OWN willingness to confront the horror in their leaders' hearts-when they empower THEMSELVES for the good of everyone, not just their tribe, their lives will get better. In the meantime, though, in our generation, it appears that things have been made worse. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-12-21 22:28 |
| #18 I think that by 1995 my darling mother-in-law had taken American citizenship... else the vote against would have been another fraction of a percent higher. Huguette loathes the party agitating for separation; just a bunch of corrupt politicians looking to be bought off by Ottowa, no different from the bunch playing the same games when she lived in Quebec as a child. and regardless of the outcome, the peepul see no real benefit. Huguette developed a dark view of human nature during those cold Quebec winters. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-12-21 22:28 |
| #17 BTW, that referendum in 1995 came down to decimal points...50.58% against to 49.42% for. So that's why the issue came up. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-12-21 21:26 |
| #16 50%+1 was a valid point of contention during the last referendum on separation in Quebec (1995). More precisely, the question was at what percentage could you say that a referendum on separation has weight? Sure, mathematically it's 50%+1 and Quebec would have loved such a result, especially since they were given a mandate to hold the referendum. The reason why this is important is precisely because Quebec desires a complete separation, with repercussions rippling throughout the rest of the country. For example, I believe once Quebec separates, Canada will cease to exist as a country, with some provinces following Quebec's exit. That risk is real. As a Canadian then (not an Ontarian, or Albertan, or Quebecois), I do not want to see Quebec separate on a 50%+1 vote. And I would hope my federal government would also not make it this easy to separate. But agreed, this is a special case and doesn't fit in exactly with what you were pointing out. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-12-21 21:21 |
| #15 Rafael, first of all, I don't claim to have all the answers to the point of you asking me the specific referendum methodology that should be used. Secondly, in the specific point you mention I used the phrase "native desire for independence" in the sense of contrasting it with imported such desires (aka "external imperialism") -- e.g the Bosnian Serbs were not truly fighting for independence, but rather for a Greater Serbia: they were the tool of Serbian imperialism. Kosovars were not fighting for independence but rather for a Greater Albania. And so on. On the other hand Quebecois, Tibetans, Chechens, Basques -- these movements for independence (some of which are peaceful, others terroristic in methodology) all seem non-imported, native movements. As for whether 50%+1 being apart to split apart a country, why are you asking me percentages? It seems to me that if it's *only* 50%+1 that wants to split a country apart, then it's likely that it won't be that big of a "splitting apart" anyway, so it will not be that drastic or perhaps even that irreversible a change. So, if you are demanding an aswer, then yes (assuming no ethnic cleansing follows), why *shouldn't* 50%+1 be enough? Have the side in favour of unity make its case better and try to convince that extra person next time. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-21 20:33 |
| #14 Good arguments, Aris. Just don't short out the keyboard. |
| Posted by: Spoluter Angeting7156 2005-12-21 20:15 |
| #13 1. Such changes of borders should not be the result of an external imperialism...but rather a native desire for independence. How would you measure the "native desire for independence"? Say a referendum is held. Should 50%+1 be enough to split apart a country? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-12-21 20:10 |
| #12 Can a moderator, please correct the faulty ending i-tag in my last post? Sorry about that. Anonymous coward, I don't expect literacy from you, I can't expect you to know the big words and be able to comprehend my post so as to make an actual rebuttal (sarcastic or not) to what I actually said. Indeed you never fail to inadvertently make posts confirming my point. Your comment would work as a sarcasm against imperialism, *against* using minorities as tools to effect border changes -- and oops, that's exactly the policy I *also* argued against. So you're sarcastically arguing the same thing I argued? How is that an attack on me? Failure of your reading skills yet again, anonymous coward. And success in reaffirming the rightness of my contempt for you and yours. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-21 20:08 |
| #11 Time to repatriate the territory and minorities that have been so cruelly denied Macedonia by the former dictatorship to its south. |
| Posted by: Spoluter Angeting7156 2005-12-21 19:59 |
| #10 So what if the Shias and Kurds have cut a deal? We are talking about 80 freaking percent of the population, No, you failed to get the point: we're talking about the elites of both sides making a deal to hold fraudulent elections. We're talking about a *coup* against democracy. That's the deal he's talking about. Kurds may not care cause they'll get their own state but what about the secular democrats in the Shia and Sunni population? Oops for them. That's the "so what". Sounds like democracy to me, except for the sore losers, who just happen to be the main strength of the terrorists operating in Iraq - Arab Sunnis. No, that's the main strength of the terrorists *fighting* in Iraq, if you can see the difference. The philo-Iranian Shi'a terrorists and other Islamofascists (e.g. Sadr) are not fighting because they have already *won*, control vast territories, have killed off the secular, liberal and philo-Western opposition, and it seems they have just bribed away all possible Kurdish opposition to their plans. Right now the Shi'a Islamofascists are just using US forces as their tool to bring down the remaining Sunni opposition. They'll only reveal their own hostility to the US presense once the Sunnis have been clearly defeated and the Shi'a Islamofascist control has solidified. And they'll then react to your presence in the same civilized way that the other fake democrats, the ones in Kyrgyzstan, have already done. No bombs against Americans from the Shia, just internal oppresion against democracy, and solidarity with the neighbouring tyrants of Iran (in Kyrgyzstan's case, Uzbekistan). Ofcourse USA can't ever admit either fraudulent elections or that the Shia areas are controlled by the bad guys, because the Bush administration needs show an image of constant improvement in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-21 19:59 |
| #9 Those who oppose it most strongly are on the tranzi side of politics and follow the UN in stating the existing borders of states are sacrosanct. A policy that stems from the world's nastiest regimes (Syria, Iran, Myanmar, Sudan, etc.) need for legitimacy as they repress and sometimes slaughter people who view those borders as prison walls. Shallowly viewed. The policy of "sanctity for existing borders" also stems from the fact that Nazi Germany tried to incorporate the minority Germanic regions of Czechoslovakia into itself, and that was one of its first steps in its war of wider conquest. Ethnic groups in neighbouring nations become either pawns of the imperialists in "mother nations" or get prosecuted by the chauvinists of their host nations, when their mere presence can be used to justify border alterations. Either way, it ain't nice. A related problem (or perhaps it's the same one) is that most minorities don't dwell in nicely related regions that can form a well-made state. To form a state out of them you end up needing to ethnically cleanse dozens of thousands, perhaps hundred of thousands of people of differing nationalities. Most recent example I believe, is the way that the Abkhazians ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands Georgians in order to be able to form "Abkhazia". (that's the basic argument *against* the supposed right of the Abkhazians to form a state. ) Previously to that was the way the Serb Bosnians genocided Bosnian Muslims in trying to form an "ethnically clean" coherent territory of Serbs in Bosnia (the populations had been hopelessly intermingled), and ofcourse the way that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots were removed off each other's territories after the island was divided. On the other side, the Croats ethnically cleansed the Serbs of their territory to *defend* against Serb ambitions on their territory -- and the Serbs attempted to ethnically cleansed the Albanians of Kosovo in reaction to the Albanian ambitions on it. As I said: not nice, on either side. On my part, mind you, I do NOT view borders as fully sactrosanct - e.g. I think that the planned division of Sudan is one of the best things that can happen to it. However, there are certain criteria that should be used as guidelines: 1. Such changes of borders should not be the result of an external imperialism (e.g. Serbia in Bosnia, Turkey in Cyprus, Russia in Abkhazia) but rather a native desire for independence. 2. Populations should not be so hopelessly intermingled that to make new borders means uprooting hundreds of thousands of people (again Bosnia, Abkhazia, etc) Given the above thoughts, there'd be no significant problem with the Kurds going independent, in much of their territory atleast (though Kirkuk is highly problematic)... ... but Sunnis and Shias are hopelessly intermingled. To make nations with clearly defined borders out of each of them means uprooting *millions* of each group from their homes. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-21 19:42 |
| #8 So what if the Shias and Kurds have cut a deal? We are talking about 80 freaking percent of the population, and both major muslim factions - Shiite and Sunni {Kurds are predominately Sunni}. 80% of the population cuts a deal with each other? Sounds like democracy to me, except for the sore losers, who just happen to be the main strength of the terrorists operating in Iraq - Arab Sunnis. Payback is a bitch, boys and girls. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2005-12-21 19:35 |
| #7 OK Moderator, sorry... Prelim Elections Let's try this... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-12-21 19:27 |
| #6 IraqtheModel thinks the Shiia and Kurds have done a deal, Baghdad for Kirkuk. Prepare for Sunni's screaming 'ethnic cleansing'. Not that it bothered them when they were doing the cleasnsing. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-21 16:45 |
| #5 (Image removed by moderator for blowing our formatting all to hell.) Wishful thinking by a UK member of the MSM. If I were a fly on the wall of the editorial board, I would expect to see drooling.... These results are not that much different than January, except that there are more Sunnis, whic one would expect because they arenot boytcotting. YOU NEED TWO-THIRDS to do any thing major. The ninconpoops at the Independent don't understand what this means. It is a restriction the Iraqis put on themselves.... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-12-21 11:51 |
| #4 The Shia religious parties in Iraq are less than perfect, but they aren't Iranian stooges. I guess that explains the difference between the less than perfect dhimmicrats and the Shia religious parties. |
| Posted by: Throth Grelet5724 2005-12-21 08:27 |
| #3 The independent is seeing the anti-American coalition disintegrate, that's the problem. With every success that the Iraqis have, another loud-mouth detractor falls to the roadside. Kind of selfish, no, extraordinarily selfish to hold your hatred of America above the prospect of the Iraqis having a better life. But I guess it's worth it to try to get a few jabs in on Uncle Sam. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-12-21 08:12 |
| #2 The Independent is arguably the British newspaper with the most anti-US coverage of the middle east. That prick Robert Fisk write for the rag - need I say more? The Shia religious parties in Iraq are less than perfect, but they aren't Iranian stooges. |
| Posted by: Apostate 2005-12-21 03:41 |
| #1 This is a good example of how the media whips up hysteria when its agenda doesn't unfold. I could replace the opening sentence, Iraq is disintegrating. with, Iraqi's vote for a federal Iraq. A lot of people, myself included, think a loose federation is the best outcome for Iraq. Those who oppose it most strongly are on the tranzi side of politics and follow the UN in stating the existing borders of states are sacrosanct. A policy that stems from the world's nastiest regimes (Syria, Iran, Myanmar, Sudan, etc.) need for legitimacy as they repress and sometimes slaughter people who view those borders as prison walls. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-21 00:30 |
