Iraqi elections - results
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Iraqi elections - results

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424

    Iraqi elections - results

    The results from the Iraqi elections are in, and it seems like they're bad news for the US. The Shiites (United Iraqi Alliance, back by Iranian Ali Sistani) have won with 132 seats out of 275. Kurds came in second with 71 seats, and US-backed Allawi only gets 38 seats. That would mean an alliance between Shiites and sympathetic Kurds, and guess what's on their list: first priority is to get the Americans out of Iraq asap; another priority is to get rid of the equality between men and women. On top of that, election-watchers are afraid of a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis...

  2. #2
    T̙͓̞̣̯ͦͭͅͅȂͧͭͧ̏̈͏̖̖Z̿ ͆̎̄
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,171
    As I mentioned in the other election thread...

    "The problems may have just begun...to the best of my knowledge there are only two Official Democratic Theocracies in the world...Iran and the Vatican...and neither can really be considered democratic nations.

    The fact is...Theocratic rule and democracy don't go well together....and never will. The only way this election will have even the remotest possibility of any success will be if the person elected is a moderate and will not be influenced by his clerics. Even then it has only a slim chance of success in the long run...because there are no safe-guards to prevent a theocratic militant gaining power in another election.

    True democratic rule cannot exist in a country bred on theocratic rule...our democracies survive only due to our societies own apathy toward religion...we recognize, in principle, the need for the separation of church and state.

    At best it will become a nation like Isreal...semi-democratic with many problems...at worst...it'll turn into another Iran or remain in a state of chaos."

    "The only way an election would work with these religious sects is to get them to accept the concept of "religious freedom" first...until then...they'll just abuse the power to promote their own ideology...and eventually rule with the perverbial " iron fist ".

    Democracy only works in Countries with a population that is ( primarily ) fanatically loyal only to making money and making more money...with the occasional reference to a religion in a very apathetic way.


    Ahhh...duh...I wanna thank god fer makin' me catch this here pigskin...yep...I go to church every Mond...I mean Sunday...right after the bar closes...errr...I mean right after breakfast...yep !

    You won't see millions of people rushing to the river Ganges ( or Mississippi ) here in pursuit of religious purification. We need to teach them religious apathy."

    Religious apathy is the key to a successful democracy !

    I still stand by these statements.

  3. #3
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Are you just guessing Negative, where is the assembly priority list? I didn't even know they met to decide this? Or anything. In my experience the Shiites of Iraq are not the same as those of Iran. In addition the Sunnis are the ones who have a real and tangible history of female oppresion in Iraq.

    It is interesting that with all of the blind following and miscommunication with Zak. that they still managed to have a turn out in the millions. Democracy is never balanced. The key, and I would hope they manage it (unlike many), is checks.

    I would think any elected government would want the USA out as soon as possible. I makes sense that the majority of poplulation would have the most seats. That's what it's all about?

    But if they fall into revolution and another Sadam emerges from the ashes of a failed democracy, we all lose. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink eh? Since most think the Shiites gaining political edge is a disaster, why worry about a civil war. Wouldn't that gain your own advantage, the loss of power by the shiites, which ARE the majority.

    Most democratic states outside of Europe and North America ARE, semi-democratic at best. If Iraq achieves this, it would be a major success on par with most of the world. Those who will rule Iraq with an Iron fist are greedy and detrimental. They must be stopped. They are not following the word of god.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Abdel Aziz Al Hakim, http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=27425

    No dignified person is willing to see foreign troops in their country, and the Iraqi people are no exception. We hope, upon the formation, at the earliest, of strong and efficient military, police and security organisations (forces), that foreign troops leave the country.
    Reuters and AP carry it, too...

  5. #5
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    That makes perfect sense. I wouldn't expect them to want American troops there AFTER they establish control through their own policing authority. They've always said that.
    I was talking about woman. Sorry about the confusion. Besides, one mans opionion is not the desire or result of a democratic government. If that were the case we would all care what Ted Kennedy says.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •