"Yes to elections" "No to occupation" 100,000 Iraqis Protest in Baghdad

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 12:08

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482907

Quote:

In their greatest show of political strength since the war tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia Muslims marched through Baghdad yesterday chanting slogans in favour of free elections for a new government.

About 100,000 protesters marched through Baghdad to al-Mustansiriyah University shouting "Yes to elections" and "No to occupation".

Simply astounding. I was astonished by the 30,000 marchers in Basra a few days ago, but 100,000? Damn. And in Baghdad, no less (not a place dominated by the Shia).

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 20, 2004, 12:10

And who said the Iraqis didn't want democracy.

Drogue · January 20, 2004, 12:33

to both demands. Give them elections, let them take over, but leave a small force as police until the Iraqi police/army are fully trained, then leave completely.

Agathon · January 20, 2004, 12:36

I believe that Bush must be ****ting himself at the prospect.

The last thing his government, or any government in the region except Iran, wants is a Shia dominated democracy.

Wasn't it his father who said that you couldn't give people a little democracy? Well that will bite his son in the ass now.

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 12:38

Yep. And it's amusing that an Ayatollah has to lecture to Shrub about democracy.

MikeH · January 20, 2004, 12:50

Democracy in Iraq.

Good one.

Sava · January 20, 2004, 12:53

wow a new mantra for protesting Iraqis... what happened to: "No Bush No Saddam, YES YES TO ISLAM!" ?

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 13:03

Quote:

Democracy in Iraq. Good one.

I'd have thought that 6 months ago, but not any more. It'll come to democracy. Or civil war. The US certainly doesn't have the capacity to establish a client state anymore, so the CPA can either handle the transition competently by giving into democracy, mollifying the Sunni by disbanding the militias, alleviating unemployment and granting labor rights, etc., or they can **** up bringing civil war, Iranian intervention, and a hardcore Islamist state. Unfortunately, past actions indicate the latter course, but who knows what some luck and a regime change/UN influence on the US might bring?

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 20, 2004, 13:08

What have you done with Ramo?

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 13:09

Recent events in Iraq and Iran have turned me into an optimist for the moment.

Shi Huangdi · January 20, 2004, 13:43

"or they can **** up bringing civil war, Iranian intervention, and a hardcore Islamist state."

For all these protests, there still isn't a credible military opposition to the coalition. The insurgents are decent at terrorist style attacks, but there has been nothing to suggest that they have the ability to take/hold territory.

"The US certainly doesn't have the capacity to establish a client state anymore,"

The US never did. But I would think that any democratic regime would be likely to be friendly to US(or at least more so then the previous regime). Also, setting up a democracy will be very good for US interests long term, so as to set up an example of another alternative to the current thugocracies that dominate the Arab world other than Islamic Fundamentalism.

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 14:36

Quote:

For all these protests, there still isn't a credible military opposition to the coalition. The insurgents are decent at terrorist style attacks, but there has been nothing to suggest that they have the ability to take/hold territory

These protests have absolutely nothing to do with the insurgents. The insurgents are Sunni Arab nationalists, the protesters are Shia (ranging from liberal to Islamist, but very few are Arab nationalists).

As for whether territory can be held, it's obvious they can't defend or take territory against us while we keep a large number of men in the country - but that won't continue indefinitely. Furthermore, if a civil war does break out because the Sunnis believe themselves to be disenfranchised, the more extremist elements of the Shia, such as Sadr, will tend to beat the moderate and liberal elements, and in such a case I think we'd be on the side of the insurgents.

Quote:

The US never did.

Sure we did. That's what the CIA was going after. Give power to a Ba'athist that switched sides like Alawi and the problem goes away.

Quote:

But I would think that any democratic regime would be likely to be friendly to US(or at least more so then the previous regime).

I doubt that a democratic regime would be friendlier to the US than Iraq during the 80's.

Ned · January 20, 2004, 14:46

I am "totally" in favor of elections without a prior census. Let the Iraqi's vote as often as they can. This is "true" democracy, Mayor Daly style.

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 15:03

It'd be obviously so much better to have US-appointed local councils consisting largely of ex-Ba'athists elect the gov't. True democracy feudal-style.

And back in this universe, the CPA has ignored and then rejected the Iraqis' plan for a census. There was and there still is no reason that a census can't be done other than American incompetence/malevolence.

chequita guevara · January 20, 2004, 15:05

It can be done, Iowa style, without ballots. Just set up places for everyone to show up and argue and be counted. It'll be messy, but democracy is messy.

Anyway, the US should have known that this was gonna happen, since Sistani's been demanding proper elections from the get go. The Administration has only itself to blame.If Sistani doesn't get what he wants, the occupation is gonna become a whole lot uglier, right in the middle of our campaign season.

Patroklos · January 20, 2004, 15:16

Of course the Iraqis want elections, to have jobs, to be rich..... Who doesn't? They like alot of you here have no concept of how things in reality progress. Its not liek they just had a war or anything like that.

Did any of you actually think there would have been an election within the year? Do any of you realize how hard it is to run an election that meets international standards? It Bush had allowed an election off the bat all of you would still be here complaining, only that they were impartial and useless because the proper prep work had not been conducted to make sure they were fair and representative. Anyone remeber how long it took to have elections in Germany? Japan? How long was it untill their unemployment was not considered epidemic?

I wonder where the majorority of Iraqis are at instead of protesting? I guess they are at their jobs and what not bieng productive. That is the problem with protests, that happy people in support of the changes hardly have the time to go out and do such things. You never hear the other side.

How do you count an Iraq protest btw? Do they have a park service or ministry of the interior to do such things?

Sava · January 20, 2004, 15:19

I love it when ignorant Americans pretend they know what Iraqis or anyone else want.

So much of America doesn't even understand it's own subcultures, let alone other cultures. It's fun to watch these people try to impose their value system on peoples who would probably slit their throats on sight.

yavoon · January 20, 2004, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I love it when ignorant Americans pretend they know what Iraqis or anyone else want.

So much of America doesn't even understand it's own subcultures, let alone other cultures. It's fun to watch these people try to impose their value system on peoples who would probably slit their throats on sight.

I like this post.

1)the comedy of being told that an american lacks perspective by a person who then portrays the rest of the world w/ a homocidal fervor.

or if u like, 2)the idea that ppl who want to wantonly slit other ppl's throats have inherently valid opinions.

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 15:33

Quote:

Did any of you actually think there would have been an election within the year?

There will be an election within the year. It's all been scheduled. It's just that the people won't have any influence in it as the national assembly will be elected through US-appointed local councils, largely consisting of ex-Ba'athists (in fact, we had to sack the mayor of Najaf a couple months after we appointed him because of kidnapping, extortion, and corruption). It'd be nice to have at least some semblance of democracy in the election instead of this absurdly feudal electoral system we're planning.

Quote:

I wonder where the majorority of Iraqis are at instead of protesting? I guess they are at their jobs and what not bieng productive.

With estimates of unemployment over 50% in most estimates, I don't think so.

The number of people protesting is as low as it is mostly because of the fear of protest established during the past few decades. That's why the protests among the Shia have become so big now that Saddam has been captured as this symbolic barrier to becoming politically active has been demolished.

As usual, you have absolutely no clue about which you're talking about. It's pretty sad that you're calling these protesters disconnected from reality when you have well demonstrated your total ignorance of Iraqi politics.

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 15:42

Quote:

Anyway, the US should have known that this was gonna happen, since Sistani's been demanding proper elections from the get go. The Administration has only itself to blame.If Sistani doesn't get what he wants, the occupation is gonna become a whole lot uglier, right in the middle of our campaign season.

And that's why I'm optimistic. I know that Shrub's foreign policy has been idiotic, but I don't think it could reach the kind of incompetence it takes to totally ignore Sistani on this. Bremer's is trying to create compromise, and sooner or later he'll realize there is no compromise on this issue.

Seeker · January 20, 2004, 15:43

Out of a population of only 22 million (less than Canada) getting 100 000 people to do anything is quite an achievement.

Any confirmation on this number or is it disputeable like the WTO protest numbers where the protestors say they have 100 000 and the police say more like 30 000....

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 15:50

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie...hdad+100%2C000

A lot of sources are saying 100,000.

Like the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/19/in...9CND-IRAQ.html

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 15:56

Interesting that the Brits are saying that elections are practical:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1073281137552

Quote:

British officials in Basra no longer oppose early elections in Iraq, saying security and procedural obstacles to polls could be surmounted before the transfer to civilian control on June 30.

"We have a working hypothesis that you could manage an electoral process within the timeframe and the security available," said Dominic D'Angelo, British spokesman for the UK-led southern zone of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Basra.

Also interesting that 100,000-300,000 protested in Basra according to their latest estimates (they claimed 30,000 when I first heard of it):

Quote:

The volte face comes after demonstrators packed Basra's streets on Thursday in response to a call from Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's senior Shia cleric, to back his demand for an elected assembly. British officials estimated there were between 100,000 and 300,000 protestors.

Well, it makes sense given that Basra is a city dominated by the Shia in contrast to Baghad. Extraordinarily large protest.

Patroklos · January 20, 2004, 16:02

But where did they goet their numbers. There is no functioning entity to count them or even to estimate what the venues can hold. How lucky, they got exactly 100,000. Such a nice round number. kind of like the 1,000,000 Man March (*cough* 100,000, pesky zeros...)

What Ramo quoted

Quote:

Did any of you actually think there would have been an election within the year?

What Ramo said

Quote:

There will be an election within the year. It's all been scheduled. It's just that the people won't have any influence in it as the national assembly will be elected through US-appointed local councils, largely consisting of ex-Ba'athists (in fact, we had to sack the mayor of Najaf a couple months after we appointed him because of kidnapping, extortion, and corruption). It'd be nice to have at least some semblance of democracy in the election instead of this absurdly feudal electoral system we're planning.

What I actually said

Quote:

Did any of you actually think there would have been an election within the year? Do any of you realize how hard it is to run an election that meets international standards? If Bush had allowed an election off the bat all of you would still be here complaining, only that they were impartial and useless because the proper prep work had not been conducted to make sure they were fair and representative

I have never known you to be so kind as to willingly prove a point. Perhaps you need some sleep. Go Ramo

CharlesBHoff · January 20, 2004, 16:11

If all the Arab State held free election the people will electic anti-american people to hold post. Iran have a republic form of government an Iran have than democratic form of government compare to the Shah government. Any democratic government in the Arab world would have to listern to the Arab street and the Arab street are anti-america.

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 16:12

Quote:

But where did they goet their numbers.

Presumably people in our government and military are able to estimate these sorts of things (the Brits claim they're able to do so anyways). I don't see why it's impossible. I don't see any good reason to dispute the 100,000 estimate.

Quote:

I have nevery known you to be so kind as to willingly prove a point. Perhaps you need some sleep.

I fail to see your point. You claimed there wasn't going to be an election. You are wrong. Now you're backtracking.

And you don't need to do any prep work to do a very representative election; look at what che wrote for instance.

And I never opposed doing a census. It should be done, and it isn't being done. The CPA ignored its responsibilites for the past several months. What we have planned isn't a representative election in the least.

Patroklos · January 20, 2004, 16:25

Don't remember stating, becasue I didn't, that their wouldn't be elections this year. I will now becasue even if they do they will be meaningless, and I don't believe the plans for them will go through as we are fast approachig the date of invasion. I only said what would happen i Bush did what you want, and both happened.

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 16:30

Quote:

Don't remember stating, becasue I didn't, that their wouldn't be elections this year.

That's the implication of a statement like "Did any of you actually think there would have been an election within the year?" Basic English comprehension, ya know.

And Bush isn't doing what I want. I want democratic elections, not feudal elections. I made that perfectly clear.

And date of invasion of what? And why would the elections be "meaningless?"

Patroklos · January 20, 2004, 16:35

Then perhaps you should practice your basic comprehension. I said expect elections (and that would mean fair, which isn't going to happen), not that their wouldn't.

Invasion of Iraq, you know, the within a year thing.

That is becasue what you want is impossible, democratic elections in Iraq within your time frame. He did exactly what you want, and it will predictable fail.

If you ask for the impossible don't be suprised when your disappointed

Ramo · January 20, 2004, 16:41

When did I say that I wanted elections within a year after the invasion of Iraq? And, the planned elections are certainly not a year after the invasion of Iraq. We invaded in March, not June.

BTW, when you say, "x will not happen within a year," that implies that "x will not happen within a year from now," not that "x will not happen within a year from some aribtrary date."

Quote:

That is becasue what you want is impossible, democratic elections in Iraq within your time frame. He did exactly what you want, and it will predictable fail.

No, he has planned feudal elections. And I gave no time frame.