Originally posted by sensfan
Will news that Bush's appointed puppet government's chance of losing the January election be enough for the election to be delayed? Everyone except the administration has come out saying it is too dangerous in Iraq right now to hold elections...will this give Bush a reason to push them back and finally say that yes, they need more time?

I think Bush has enough problems with his own re-election without worrying about whats going on in Iraq.

Did anyone NOT expect this to happen?

The Iraqi people are ajusting to democracy they now have the right to complain if they dont have running water without facing a firing squad.

Originally posted by xpert11
The Iraqi people are ajusting to democracy they now have the right to complain if they dont have running water without facing a firing squad.

Well said xpert11! Also worth noting that Allawi's approval rating is still higher than George W's was in May

(doubts about the article's credibility removed following Aceofbase's post below)

[edit on 25-10-2004 by mattpryor]

WAR: US-backed Iraq government losing support

SO! What happens if the election goes ahead and the US backed party loses?

Will the US accept the result?

Will the US just pack up and leave if they were asked to by a legally elected Iraqi government?

My thoughts as a non-alligned observer...

No US administration would let that happen , especially after the number of American lives spent to get to the current situation

No US administration would willingly let go the stranglehold they have on the oil producing region.

The US will NOT allow the election to go ahead if their clients cannot win.
The US will delay the election for as long as it takes, citing security as the reason.

I am not anti_US, just a realist.

Nonpartyanimal, we won't allow what to happen? Our first and foremost goal was the removal of the threat. The threat is now gone. The second step is to put the country in a position where they can now rule themselves and we can get the H-E-C-K outta there! We got other places to go and can't waste a bunch of time holding these folks' hands. So many despotic regimes to smash, so many puppet governments to establish!

I think that if a democratically elected government asked coalition forces to leave Iraq then they would. That's not going to happen though, as there is no way any government there could control the security situation without US & coalition help.

Similarly I don't think it's likely that elections will be postponed for any reason, no matter how bad the security situation gets, and no matter what the likely outcome. But then I'm in the camp that thinks we went into Iraq with primarily good intentions, and nothing that has happened since last year has changed my mind on that.

History will tell who's right I suppose.

SO! What happens if the election goes ahead and the US backed party loses?
Unsure I dont think there isnt anything the USA could do after all thats why its called democracy. However if the admiration really dosnt like the party in power they could withold aid money for key public works such as sewage thus causing the Iraqi public to lose faith in the elected government. Who ever is elected will still be faced with the same problem it is the USA who controlls most of the funds that will rebuilt Iraq.
May we see Iraq turn into the Japan of the Middle East.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by xpert11]

mattpryor said...
"I think that if a democratically elected government asked coalition forces to leave Iraq then they would. "

Matt - I disagree!

The current Bush administration seems to me to be caught up by their own rhetoric. ie. "The election must go ahead no matter what". Otherwise, they look bad to their own voters and give up on their stated war aims.

A future Bush administration would not have the same constraints after a US election victory.

Say the likely result points to a Shia Islamist victory in the Iraqi election. (most Iraqis are Shias after all)

Will Bush tolerate another sovereign Islamist state in the region.?
Will Kerry tolerate one if he wins?

This is "Fairies at the bottom of the garden" stuff!

My view is that the US cannot allow a really free Iraq. The best the Iraqis can hope for is to be a client state, and a base for US forces in the region.

The US could softern their presence by keeping their forces inside compounds and using "advisors" to help their client government maintain power, but independent and sovereign (free)- hardly!

All the best,

Originally posted by xpert11 However if the admiration really dosnt like the party in power they could withold aid money for key public works such as sewage thus causing the Iraqi public to lose faith in the elected government. Who ever is elected will still be faced with the same problem it is the USA who controlls most of the funds that will rebuilt Iraq.
May we see Iraq turn into the Japan of the Middle East.

That's probably why they spent Iraq's money first.
I don't think Iraq has any money left that isn't already accounted for.
It was all spent on reconstruction projects, compensation to Iraqis, salaries and other projects.

What I don't understand about this thread is this quote from the original Reuters article:

The Washington Post, reporting figures not publicly released by the institute, said the survey also found that the most popular politician in Iraq was Abdel Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Fifty-one percent said they want him in the national assembly, which will pick a new government.

Allawi was second, with 47 percent of Iraqis supporting him for a seat in the new parliament if elections were held now, and rebel Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was a close third, with 46 percent, the newspaper said. An institute spokesman would not confirm the Post figures.

But according to the IRI results summary...

Moreover, those that said their vote could be influenced by the opinion of religious leaders overwhelmingly indicated that more moderate leaders would be most likely to influence them. When asked, for example, which Cleric might sway their vote, over 53 percent cited Ali Al-Sistani, who has clearly expressed his support for democratic reform in Iraq. The militant Muqtada al-Sadr, by way of contrast, was mentioned by only 5 percent of respondents.

It does seem a little odd.
I wish they would have included those question in the file on their site.