You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Shia bloc wins Iraq polls, but short of majority
2005-02-14
A Shia Islamist bloc has won Iraq's first election since Saddam Hussein's overthrow, sealing the political resurgence of the nation's long-oppressed majority. The Electoral Commission said on Sunday the Shia list, known as the United Iraqi Alliance, took more than 47 percent of the vote. The list blessed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is expected to get 132 out of 275 seats in the National Assembly once the final results are made official in three days.

But this was less than the bloc had predicted and leaves it six or seven seats short of a majority in parliament. A powerful Kurdish alliance came second with 25 percent, while a grouping led by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a secular Shia, came third with nearly 14 percent. Few Sunni Arabs took part in the voting, which effectively marginalises the minority that has traditionally ruled modern Iraq and held a privileged position under Saddam, a Sunni. The commission said 8.5 million Iraqis, or 58 percent of registered voters, cast ballots in the January 30 poll, Iraq's first multi-party election for half a century.
Posted by:Fred

#21  So who is winning the war on terror? Desperation is a sure sign of defeatism. Pick it up!
Posted by: IToldYouSo   2005-02-14 7:58:37 PM  

#20  4.3 But points for use of non linear thought and extra bold. It is a fact that anti-semitic culture is historically rooted in the area bound by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Thus, it is sacred ground to most Buchanaites.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-02-14 5:13:08 PM  

#19  Start your own blog site. Post your brilliance there. I'm sure you'll be a star in no time.

Factually, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about, as I said originally. You posted nothing that would even remotely begin to refute me. Your hyper-bolded post only indicates your insecurity and need for attention. Get that gratification somewhere else, you're out of it and born to scorned with your idiot nuke posts. And since you're posting from Kanada, that's probably another source of envy. Sucks to be you.
Posted by: .com   2005-02-14 2:02:59 PM  

#18  AFFIRM OR DENY OR BE SILENT

VIEW: Have Iraqis voted for a dictatorship? —Muqtedar Khan
Daily Times (Pakistan terrorist entity), Feb 13, 2005
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_13-2-2005_pg3_6

The election should be seen as a manifestation of power that Ali Sistani wields on the Shiite population of Iraq. His decree, making it a religious obligation for Shiite Muslims to vote, was responsible for the huge turnout. The Shiites recognise that the US occupation is a historic opportunity. If they are disciplined and patient they will rule Iraq. Their principal opponents will be quashed by the US itself.

The Bush administration is under the false impression that the elections in Iraq have heralded the era of democracy in Iraq and thus justify the Bush pre-emption doctrine. What, it seems, they cannot see is that the US has just facilitated a major transfer of power in the Arab World — from Sunnis to Shiites. Thanks to the US the Arab Shiites will now control Baghdad — the jewel in the Islamic crown — after a millennium. They did not rule over Baghdad even under the glorious Fatimid dynasty (909-1171) that governed Egypt, North Africa and Syria but had only a tenuous hold over Baghdad, briefly under the Buwayhid tribal confederation, before the Turkic Seljuks invaded and captured the city with help from the Abbasids...

It is a fact that semitic culture is historically rooted in the area bound by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Thus, it is sacred ground to most Arabs. Now, Persian Islamofascists (al-Sistani is an Iran born Persian) have a "faith based" corridor of wild-eyed, Ashoura' blood-hungry friendlies, that stretches from Teheran to Jerusalem. Now, doesn't facilitation of that, spit on the graves of the 9-11 dead? Also, the "angryarab" nasty blog reported that ingrate Iraqi voters in the US, gave more votes to the Commies than to Alawi's pro-US party. Mantra: Fred likes fact and hates fiction; try it and you might like it.

I'mTellingYouSo now, so I don't have to say IToldYouSo, later. Be nice; there might be ladies present.

Posted by: IToldYouSo   2005-02-14 1:40:15 PM  

#17  "Reject new viruses? That's just mean!"
-- AOL commercial
Posted by: mojo   2005-02-14 1:15:51 PM  

#16  yeah..and she was reading A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, which would indicate she's probably in 6th grade...or maybe Jr. High.
Posted by: 2b   2005-02-14 12:32:35 PM  

#15  Lesson: generosity in victory, sucks! Nuclear arms are cost effective.

Lesson: It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to post and remove all doubt.
Posted by: Pappy   2005-02-14 12:26:56 PM  

#14  Thanks for correcting and expanding on my post, jackel. You make my point better than I did :-).

ITSY is clearly not Antiwar, then...she posted from Australia, as I recall. She claimed vehemently that she had a real, live boyfriend, and could read, too. So clearly her viciousness had a different basis than this Candadian person's.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-02-14 12:14:27 PM  

#13  ITSY is posting via Alberta Canada. I suggest he take up his grievances with Paul Martin or possibly Bloc Quebecois. He might find better cheese for his whine.
Posted by: Seafarious   2005-02-14 11:49:28 AM  

#12  TN- Sorry for slow response - computer NIC went on the fritz and had to swap it out and get reset with cable co.

Iraqi expats, of course, are not a homogeneous spread, so the mix that happens to live the in the US varies from the mix in the UK. However, it is true that the majority that left in the last 35 years are those that either escaped or Saddam gave his blessing to, no?

One of my "friends" in Saudi who went to university in the UK and was working at Aramco was precisely of that majority, Sunni & Ba'athist - and he is the one who told me how it worked - only those who had the right connections were given the easy trip abroad. The last time I saw him was during the war - and he had decided not to talk to me or any other Westerners anymore. So that, was that.

I'll say the approximate figures make sense to me - and he verified the process behind the logic, so I figure they're pretty good. I'm sure you can locate organizations of Iraqi expats and prove or disprove the specific percentages.
Posted by: .com   2005-02-14 9:58:46 AM  

#11  It's possible that if we had taken Fallujah the way we did Aachen or Berlin, they would be psychologically defeated and hopeless. Possible. Perhaps not.

But there sure as Hell would be a lot more of them dead.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-14 9:13:58 AM  

#10  TN: Before 1990, Detroit had a large Chaldean community, mostly Christian. I don't know how Saddam treated Christians in Iraq. I haven't been back there since, so don't know about the more recent arrivals.

TW: I agree that nuking cities full of innocent people would be abhorrent and would be ashamed of voting for a government that instituted such a policy, unless we get forced into an either/or situation (which is what the Left wants). However, I wouldn't agree completely with your Versailles analogy.

The problem with WWI is that Germany wasn't completely defeated; the army was still mostly on French or Belgian soil. They resented the "harshness" of the treaty (which was far milder than Brest-Litovsk) because "we hadn't really lost."

The treaty at the end of WWII was far harsher than Versailles. Something like 1/3 of Germany became Poland (or the USSR). Germany itself was torn in half. They were forbidden from having any military at all. They weren't even allowed a civilian government for a few years. The country was physically occupied by the Allies.

However, this wasn't resented as much because Germany became utterly defeated. The country was bombed flat (or to a cinder). The people had tanks drive and fight across their land. The government unconditionally surrendered. After a defeat of that size, and with things like the Morganthau plan floating around, the actual terms were considered to be generous.

To come back to the 21st century, Iraq quickly folded under the invasion, with many units never coming into combat, so they could say "well, we were never defeated in battle." The Saddamites never had the feeling of complete and utter defeat. It's possible that if we had taken Fallujah the way we did Aachen or Berlin, they would be psychologically defeated and hopeless. Possible. Perhaps not.
Posted by: jackal   2005-02-14 9:04:06 AM  

#9  If you were an Iraqi in the US, the odds are at least 90% that you'd be a Sunni Ba'athist - the other 10% are lucky living exiles

Not disputing your numbers, .com - or your trashing of our troll here - but where did you get those figures from. I was under the impression that some significant portion of Iraqis in the US are in fact Kurds. Now, they may be Sunni muslims, but I'd lay odds that their Kurdish identity in most cases predominates.

Not looking to flame, but I think we'd better have real numbers before we draw conclusions.
Posted by: true nuff   2005-02-14 8:34:33 AM  

#8  We are generous in victory because we learned the hard way that vengeance in victory creates the conditions for the next war (anyone here remember how the Treaty of Versailles led to WWII, IToldYouSo?). And, we don't go around nuking our enemies when there are still other options because that is uncivilized. Not to mention stupid: using our nukes is Samson-bringing-down-the-temple, poisoning-our-own-nest, Pyhrric defeat stuff. We aren't anywhere near that point yet -- and if we should get there, it won't be just Iraqi idiots who regret pushing us to that point (any chance you live downwind of the Middle East, IToldYouSo? Do you like the idea of radioactive dust falling on your tomatoes?)
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-02-14 7:25:40 AM  

#7  The turkmen don't like it they can leave. The deal with the Kurds was done before the election. The Turks can STFU. The lack of control we have in the Sunni triangle is in part due to Turkish back stabing. Go see how you 30 peices of silver you got from Chirac spends you Turkish fools. Sour grapes from those that didn't have the balls to go vote. Tough luck. Don't vote don't bitch as they say.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2005-02-14 6:20:45 AM  

#6  I'm particularly enjoying the Turkish discomfort and their pitiful mewling about the results, lol!
Posted by: .com   2005-02-14 6:12:28 AM  

#5  If you were an Iraqi in the US, the odds are at least 90% that you'd be a Sunni Ba'athist - the other 10% are lucky living exiles. I'm just happy that the voters abroad numbered so very few relative to the voters in Iraq. Those abroad are predominantly Saddamists, as I pointed out. They didn't want to register an anti-clerical vote, per se, but an anti-everyone-against-Saddam vote...
Posted by: .com   2005-02-14 6:01:49 AM  

#4  Were I an Iraqi in the USA and wanted to register an anti-clerical vote then i might well vote communist and I'm about as (rabidly) anti-communist as they come.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-02-14 5:54:28 AM  

#3  Sigh. Somebody has math problem... although that's the least of the lot.

47% Sistani's Shi'a slate
25% Kurdish slate
14% Allawi's slate
---
86%

That leaves 14% for ALL other slates combined - and there were over 100. So the Communist slate is way the fuck out of it and will have, for all intents and purposes, no voice. Note in the article that the only reference to Communists is in this sentence, in the last paragraph:
"In the town of Baquba northeast of Baghdad, assailants shot dead a Communist party member who was also a local councillor."

So you're wanking about something you read somewhere else? Got a link, dink?

Regards Iraqis in the US, a very tiny fraction of the vote total, BTW -- who do you think they are? Go ahead, take a few minutes to think about it. It will be a new experience for you. We'll wait...

They received permission to emigrate, study abroad, etc. Who was in power? Think maybe, just fucking maybe, that the majority of the Iraqis abroad are Sunnis and Ba'ath Party members? Who else would Saddam have allowed such a privilege? Since many Sunnis "boycotted" the elections and presented so few Sunni slates, who were these morons going to vote for?

You've made no case, whatsoever, for doing anything to the Iraqis in Iraq. Your point is that people do not appreciate our generosity? Well no shit, Sherlock. That defines a large chunk of humanity, doesn't it? So you wanna drag out nukes cuz a few Iraqi expats in the US voted for the Communist slate? WTF?

Who and where would you suggest nuking, genius?

Duh- duh- dumbass.

You're an ignorant twit with no point other than the one on top of your head. Your tiny reservoir of knowledge is second, third, or fourth hand, your understanding of Arabs and the Middle East is paltry - on a good day, and your analysis is pure mindless shut-in Western Simpleton Nuveau.

You should listen and not speak. Your constant reference to nuking shit proves you have nothing to add to the RB knowledge pool. A cost-effective solution for RB would be to block your IP with 5 or 6 keystrokes for being a hate troll.
Posted by: .com   2005-02-14 5:19:40 AM  

#2   Lesson: generosity in victory, sucks! Nuclear arms are cost effective.

Another lesson: You can't choke the living sh*t out of trolls with nuclear arms.
Posted by: badanov   2005-02-14 4:01:21 AM  

#1  Keep this firmly in mind: Iraqi residents of the US, delivered more votes to the Communist Party than did they give Alawi's pro-US party? Lesson: generosity in victory, sucks! Nuclear arms are cost effective.
Posted by: IToldYouSo   2005-02-14 3:59:33 AM  

00:00