Sunni party drops out of Iraq's national elections, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 20-2-2010 @ 07:58 AM by Jakes51

Sunni party drops out of Iraq's national elections

news.yahoo.com

BAGHDAD – The Sunni wing of Iraq's leading nonsectarian political coalition said Saturday it will drop out of next month's election as a result of alleged Iranian influence on a Shiite-led vetting panel that blacklisted hundreds of candidates.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com
news.yahoo.com
www.guardian.co.uk
www1.voanews.com

reply posted on 20-2-2010 @ 07:58 AM by Jakes51

Well, it looks like it is going to be a warm spring and hot summer in Iraq. Good thing the US has a well fortified embassy that is larger than the Vatican. Apparently, Iraqi democracy has hit a road block? Once again, the Sunni and Shia have reached an impasse on how to share power and governance. Sunni candidates are claiming they have been unduly disqualified from holding candidacy from the Shiites. Plus, the Sunni candidates claim Iranian meddling may be behind some of it.

Vast majority of the country is religiously Shia while a minority is Sunni. The only reason the Sunni's had a majority stake in government before this, is because the Baathists ruled the country under the iron fist of the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Now, it looks as though the Shiites are forming a monopoly on power in with their new voting block and a majority in the Iraqi government. Could this be what causes a second explosion in sectarian violence, and future difficulties for the scheduled draw-down of US forces in the region? If the Sunnis consider they are being disenfranchised by the current political establishment, a new insurgency will be the response.

It happened before when the US essentially kept them out of the reconstruction of Iraq in de-Baathification and when they dispersed the Iraqi Army after fall of the Hussein regime. So, the spring and summer months could get very hot and contested. Perhaps, the already spent US forces will once again be unpacking to continue their stay in that war torn country? Will the US remain moderate and strictly observers in these election flaps or will they pick sides, and with whom?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Jakes51]

reply posted on 20-2-2010 @ 01:58 PM by tothetenthpower

I'm really not surprised with all the infighting going on here.

This whole de-baathification thing is nonsense. Those who were aligned with Saddam Hussein did so out of fear.

The actions of one man should not hold an entire group of people responsible almost a decade later.

Especially considering the circumstances.

~Keeper

reply posted on 20-2-2010 @ 02:12 PM by Jakes51

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I'm really not surprised with all the infighting going on here.

This whole de-baathification thing is nonsense. Those who were aligned with Saddam Hussein did so out of fear.

The actions of one man should not hold an entire group of people responsible almost a decade later.

Especially considering the circumstances.

~Keeper

I agree and it seems the Sunni are getting the shaft from the Al-Maliki government? The whole de-baathification thing was a disaster not only for Iraq, but the US occupation at the time. It surely led to the blood shed we were seeing daily leading up to the surge in 2007.

Reconstruction would have been much more stable if that group was allowed to participate along the Shiites. Hopefully, it would have given the two sides an ability to engage and heal the wounds of old. At any rate, right now, it appears a government has taken shape without any influence by the Sunnis. That is a witches brew when one side is kept from the table regarding the formation of a new government. It usually leads to wanton violence and civil war. It seems the two sides are at odds as they were before the invasion. I will be watching this one closely, and thanks the reply.

reply posted on 20-2-2010 @ 02:21 PM by SpartanKingLeonidas

reply to post by Jakes51

Jakes51, I see just about any election, whether American, or Iraqi as suspect.

The reason for my statement above and such a sense of cynicism?

One word answers that alone and it is :

Power.

People, will do just about anything to gain power, anything.

Whether it is an American election, or the Iraqi election, where our Government will try to act benign and benevolent, power is everything, and since we have poured trillions of dollars into ousting Saddam Hussien, there are American's who believe the Iraqi's owe their allegience to us.

This however is where I devoutly disagree because democracry is not something we can give away at a cost like a McDonalds franchising license.

McDemocracy : Would You Like Fries With Your Freedom, Sir?

The truth of the matter is if we did not allow Saddam Hussein to reign unchecked through the inefficient and bureaucratic red tape of the United Nations, and put up with silly ideas of political sanctioning, he would never have ruled so ruthlessly as a puppet dictator to begin with and the people of Iraq might have had more choices, and the Oil for Food scandal would never have happened, at the laughing of those belligerent politicians in the United Nations, where each and every country divied up that countries oil like 3rd graders running for the soccer and kickballs thrown out during recess.

I answered a thread last night about the question this ATS'er posed :

Why hasn't the UN placed sanctions on the United States of America?

My posting that is in no way an attack on that ATS'er but the mere posting is because of my answer to him, about his thoughts on the United Nations and belief that the United States should be sanctioned.

Personally, I say we pull out of Iraq, and pull out of the United Nations.

Let the United Nations Security Council fall apart and fall flat on its face.

The loss of our money alone would cripple the United Nations.

I bet we would see just how fast the greedy bastards in the U.N.S.C. would carve up Iraq, and the Iraqi's would not have a free election, but the offer of more funding, to keep American interests out of the Middle East.

But then again, we did not go after Saddam Hussein for W.M.D.'s, but G.O.D.

Guns, Oil, and Drugs, the Middle East's real riches, because the guns we have to purchase, or manufacture to keep the conflict stirring, to keep that oil flowing, to keep up the conflict in the Middle East and the Golden Crescent is astounding, and making people filthy rich at the expense of our soldiers lives.

Taliban Build Multi-Million Dollar Insurgent Operation, Complicating U.S. Efforts

So, my thoughts on Iraq, and their impending election?

It will not be a free election no matter how many statistics are thrown around.

It will never be a free country because of our State Department and Department of Defense.

It will never be a free country with free elections because no matter if the Sunni, Shiite, or even if Saddam Hussein were ressurected, they will owe us.

I see this as a slippery slope because I do not believe the United States needs to operate as a Police Enforcer, for countries who cannot fend for themselves.

I believe, if you want freedom, if you want democracy, you have to be willing to bleed for it.

I believe, if you want freedom, if you want democracy, you have to be willing to die for it.

I believe, if you want freedom, if you want democracy, you have to be willing to take it.

Not be willing to make allowances for others to prop you up because that is false power.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply posted on 20-2-2010 @ 03:37 PM by Jakes51

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

I agree with a lot of what you said, and yes, freedom is never free. A nation will never attain true freedom without a fight. People have to bleed for it as you put, like our forefathers of the Revolution, or even more recently, the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. Then, as you put, the Iraqi's are on the hook for trillions of dollars by United States for the removel of Saddam Hussein. Whatever reason the war began in the first place, your guess is as good as mine? However, looking at the investment the US has made in treasure and lives; there will be meddling in all future Iraqi elections to insure their interests are met.

Furthermore, if the Iraqis are going to succeed, they are going to have to realize the US invasion was by choice from the politicians in Washington, and they are beholden to no-one but their country. Then the two sectarian groups have to refrain from the opulence and support of foreign powers, ie: the US, Iran, and other countries throwing their weight around to unduly influence the political process. I would deem it an "Iraq First," policy in their approach. However, if the aforementioned approach is taken, the other powers will not take it lightly and there will be violence, intimidation, and political disruption.

This will be the test of the burgeoning Iraqi democracy as the US sees so fit they should have. It will be interesting if it is allowed to take shape as it should, in a natural way, or a puppet regime takes power to rule in line with a foreign power's interests. However, the recent event with the Sunnis perceived disenfranchisement by the Shiite led majority is reason for alarm, because the Sunni have a stake as well as the Shiites. If the matter is not resolved reasonably by both sides, there will be violence in the streets not seen in about a couple years or so. The political situation will be brought back to square one, as was seen following the invasion during the Bush Administration. Thus, making the US presence indefinite as many claim is the true reason for the Iraq War.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Jakes51]

Pages: ^^TOP^^