[redmenace]

Originally posted by Gank
Aye but 20 years of oil at increasing prices and demand equals a hell of a lot of money

They won enough that a government cannot be formed without them, so basically they have all the power.

Edit, actually they did win a majority, 51%

umm not according to CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/index.html

[Gank]

CNNs wrong.
http://www.juancole.com/

The UIA has in the end received 51 percent of seats in parliament, because of the electoral method being used, which added percentages from parties that did not quite pass the threshold for being seated to the parties that did, in a sort of second round. Second, the UIA may still be able to pick up some allies from small Shiite parties that ran separately but have similar goals (they are more theocratic than the UIA)-- which suggests that they may actually have 52 or 53 percent.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Gank
CNNs wrong.
http://www.juancole.com/
 

Lebanese Broadcasting Co. vs Cnn

Which has more credibility?

Although both could be right. The shiites would need a 2/3 super majority to get anything done.

[Ghostavo]

wikipedia states about 48%...

[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4263087.stm

BBC also says 48%

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing


???
Can you please quote me on that? Or are you just saying what you think i said?
The elections were a sham, that much is correct. That Alawy was going to win is completelly false.

Im sure the US wants a new government leader that has the potential to totally f**k them over...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.


Im sure the US wants a new government leader that has the potential to totally f**k them over...

Actually, swamp_thing is possibly referring to the complete lack of elected Sunni Muslim (~20% of the population) officials, due to a combination of the security problems and also the limiting of which towns can vote (as a result of the former problems); given that the Sunnis are the most anti-American group there is in Iraq (particularly as the former ruling group), I'm sure the US isn't too unhappy at that.

[Swamp_Thing]

Not only did the sunnis boycott the elections, but there were countless situations where certain towns did not receive their ballots, other towns got their polling stations closed before voting started, etc etc. These elections were rampant with irregularities. That´s why it was a sham.

And then there´s a simple fact that most people fail to pay enough atention to: Because of the boycott, the new govt is not a representation of all iraqi minorities. Lots of people will feel left out, wich will cause a lot of friction between them. With the current security chaos, and the fact that sunnis and shiites are at eachother´s throat everytime they can, these results are liable to throw another proverbial logg in the fire. Civil war is a definitelly possibility. Some would say that not only it´s a possibility, it´s already happening. Mosques are getting blown in a weekly basis, assassinations, vendettas, etc etc. A real cauldron of hatread.

[redmenace]

Why would they feel left out? True the threat of violence is a potent one. But many Sunnis loved Saddam. Mainly because he took care of them at the expense of the Shiite and Kurds. I think it is not the fact that they will feel left out that will be a problem. I think they simply resent being no longer in power.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
Why would they feel left out? True the threat of violence is a potent one. But many Sunnis loved Saddam. Mainly because he took care of them at the expense of the Shiite and Kurds. I think it is not the fact that they will feel left out that will be a problem. I think they simply resent being no longer in power.

no doubt they'll (or many of them) resent the loss of power and protection of Saddams regime - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given democratic representation, does it?  And if the situation dictates that they aren't - be it through intimidation owing to the poor security, or the lack of polling booths in their area - then clearly it cannot be fair.

Yes, the Shi'ite/Kurd coalition will likely have Sunni representation (they'll be told to do so by the US), but that representation will be picked by them, not the Sunni population, and likely will be picked to serve their own (the new governments' / US') agenda.

[Gank]

Originally posted by redmenace
Lebanese Broadcasting Co. vs Cnn

Which has more credibility?

Although both could be right. The shiites would need a 2/3 super majority to get anything done.

When it comes to middle east probably the Lebanese channel. Seems both they and BBC are ignorant of the fact that the tallyings not finished:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=1&u=/nm/20050215/wl_nm/iraq_dc_355

While the Shi'ite bloc won slightly less than half the vote, it could end up with about 140 seats in the assembly -- two more than a majority -- once those votes that went to candidates who did not get enough to secure a seat are redistributed.

 That could happen by the end of the week, provided the final tally is certified Wednesday as scheduled.

Lebanese broad co. could be a bit premature but  seeing how the leader of the UIA is saying this I'm inclined to believe its been confirmed.
And a 2/3 majority is only needed to form a government by themselves, a 51% majority of the vote means they can pass laws by themselves.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Not only did the sunnis boycott the elections, but there were countless situations where certain towns did not receive their ballots, other towns got their polling stations closed before voting started, etc etc. These elections were rampant with irregularities. That´s why it was a sham.

I agree 100%. Still you've got to love the irony that this sham election organised by the USA has ended up electing a goverment who not only did they not want to win but who will also no doubt cosy up with Iran against their wishes

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Am I the only one that finds the Bush government (which is conservative IIRC) wanting that a secular liberal government took place, funny?

Bush would be quite liberal by Middle Eastern standards.

[Rictor]

Well, considering that its the Sunnis who have been the core of the resistance, I would think that a Shia government would be preferable, especially considering that Chalabi seems to have played a pretty major part in it.

For my money, the election is not legimate for the simple fact that it was held under occupation by a hostile foreign army, and that no major party offered an explicit anti-occupation platform, though admitedlly some attempted to kind of sort of imply that maybe it didn't sit with them too well.

[Flipside]

Thing is, people who don't want the Americans there are hardly going to go and say so at a polling booth surrounded by armed American Soldiers.

It's a step in the right direction, as it were, but until Iraq can hold it's own elections, arranged and overseen by Iraqi authorities only, theres always going to be a pall over these elctions.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


no doubt they'll (or many of them) resent the loss of power and protection of Saddams regime - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given democratic representation, does it?  And if the situation dictates that they aren't - be it through intimidation owing to the poor security, or the lack of polling booths in their area - then clearly it cannot be fair.

Yes, the Shi'ite/Kurd coalition will likely have Sunni representation (they'll be told to do so by the US), but that representation will be picked by them, not the Sunni population, and likely will be picked to serve their own (the new governments' / US') agenda.

The only reason there is a security problem is the fact that there are many Sunnis helping the terrorists in places like Bagdad, Mosul, etc. There are neighborhoods out there that coalition and iraqi forces cannot enter because they come under immediate fire. The inhabitants of those neighborhoods won't cooperate with coalition or iraqi forces becuase they support the terrorists. The point is that even if security were not a concern, they would not be supporting the "sham" elections. This is especially evident by the Sunni clerics. The Sunni clerics fiercly denounced the election while the Shiite clerics fiercly supported the election.

Originally posted by karajorma
I agree 100%. Still you've got to love the irony that this sham election organised by the USA has ended up electing a goverment who not only did they not want to win but who will also no doubt cosy up with Iran against their wishes

Why is it that regaurdless of who ever was elected you were going to call it a sham. Frankly, the Sunnis that didn't, didn't vote because they didn't want to vote as stated above. :thepimp:

Originally posted by Flipside
Thing is, people who don't want the Americans there are hardly going to go and say so at a polling booth surrounded by armed American Soldiers.

It's a step in the right direction, as it were, but until Iraq can hold it's own elections, arranged and overseen by Iraqi authorities only, theres always going to be a pall over these elctions.

Actually, from what I saw on CNN in the Sunni areas, they had Iraqi forces guarding the polls.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Rictor
Well, considering that its the Sunnis who have been the core of the resistance, I would think that a Shia government would be preferable, especially considering that Chalabi seems to have played a pretty major part in it.

For my money, the election is not legimate for the simple fact that it was held under occupation by a hostile foreign army, and that no major party offered an explicit anti-occupation platform, though admitedlly some attempted to kind of sort of imply that maybe it didn't sit with them too well.

Hostile Foreign Army

Hey if the new government wants the US to leave I have no problem with that. Frankly, the sooner the better.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by redmenace
The only reason there is a security problem is the fact that there are many Sunnis helping the terrorists in places like Bagdad, Mosul, etc. There are neighborhoods out there that coalition and iraqi forces cannot enter because they come under immediate fire. The inhabitants of those neighborhoods won't cooperate with coalition or iraqi forces becuase they support the terrorists. The point is that even if security were not a concern, they would not be supporting the "sham" elections. This is especially evident by the Sunni clerics. The Sunni clerics fiercly denounced the election while the Shiite clerics fiercly supported the election.

I never said that it wasn't also an irony that the terrorist have been actively preventing people from voting who would largely vote for their own parties

The Terrorists have their own fair share of stupidity.

Originally posted by redmenace
Why is it that regaurdless of who ever was elected you were going to call it a sham. Frankly, the Sunnis that didn't, didn't vote because they didn't want to vote as stated above. :thepimp:

Because if the election isn't representative then it is a sham by definition. Does it matter who was preventing the Sunnis from voting? The fact that they couldn't means that the whole election wasn't representative of the wishes of the people of Iraq.

[redmenace]

unless they decided, that they didn't want to vote period. That was one of the points I was making. But if you are saying that it is not representative simply because Sunnis didn't vote, that is an over simplification. By the same standard, any election that doesn't have full turn out is a sham, even when people decide they don't want to vote.

[Flipside]

I suppose it depends really, if 20% of a population didn't vote in an election, no biggy, but if, for example, nearly all of those 20% were from a single group in Society, be it religious or a sub-society, then it suggests to me that that particular section of society has no faith whatsoever in the Election and that there are problems to be addressed.