yeah but they had their election...no matter what the consequeneces were and are....and right before that morons state of the union..what a coincidence..freedoms on the march..and by the way..we would like to privatize social security....this administation will do or say ANYTING with an astounding lack of regard for the truth...this forced election could very well be the straw that broke the monkey's back and send iraq into civil war...but you wouldn't know that by watching our media and their coverage of iraq..it's spooky as hell

Why do I keep remembering those images from the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" where the Arabs had ridden into Damascus and were trying to establish a government, only to find that each factional group hated the others too much? Even Sistani's coalition is only loosely bound. What happens when the real negotiations begin and factors which affect each group have to be given away? Let's not even visit the question of what happens when the Sunni Arabs decide that it's war to the death, now or never, with the US Army caught in the middle. How long can the US Army operate when it's supply lines are slashed? The answer is - not long. Perhaps Iraq is just a foretaste of what the 21st century will look like, just as Spain served that function in the 20th.

yeah, iran better watch it, we're after them, but
nope, nothing there, Condi says so...

Yeah right, she said there were WMD's in Iraq too, yeah, and mushroom clouds, and and and....

When are these imperialists going to realize that each step they take pushes us further from reconciling with the rest of the world, then again, we own the world, yeah that's it, and trespassers will be shot...

It's interesting to think about whether BushCo has the stones to try and fix this election. It's one thing to rig an election in America, where everybody is fat and lazy. But in a country where civil war is always around the corner (if that far), they may just have to accept the fruits of democracy.

What will this mean if the government of Allawi loses?

The future of Iraq and the US occupation

Editor's note The following is an excerpt from a presentation by Noam Chomsky on January 26 at a forum sponsored by the Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the International Relations Center. Chomsky is a member of the IRC's board of directors.

Let's just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let's say more or less democratic, what are the policies likely to be?

Well, there's going to be a Shi'ite majority, so they'll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they'll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don't particularly like Iran, but they don't want to go to war with them so they'll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam [Hussein], that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.

That's the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shi'ite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shi'ite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare - a Shi'ite region which controls most of the world's oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that's something that goes back to biblical times.

What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They're going to have to rearm to confront Israel - which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here's the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington - and probably 10 Downing street in London - that here you might get a substantial Shi'ite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the US outposts that are there to try to make sure that the US controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That's kind of next to inconceivable.

What I've just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: "Uh well, okay, we'll let them have a government, but we're not going to pay any attention to what they say." In fact, the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we're keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.

And the propaganda is very evident right in these articles. You can even write the commentary now: we just have to do it because we have to accomplish our mission of bringing democracy to Iraq. If they have an elected government that doesn't understand that, well, what can we do with these dumb Arabs, you know? Actually that's very common because look, after all, the US has overthrown democracy after democracy, because the people don't understand. They follow the wrong course. So therefore, following the mission of establishing democracy, we've got to overthrow their governments.

I think that [conscription] is going to be a last resort. The reason is the Vietnam experience. The Vietnam experience, I think, is the first time in the history of European imperialism that an imperial power tried to fight a colonial war with a citizen's army. I mean the British didn't do it, and the French had the Foreign Legion ... In colonial wars, civilians are just no good. [Colonial wars are] too brutal and vicious and murderous. You just can't take kids off the street and have them fight that kind of war. You need trained killers, like the French Foreign Legion.

In fact you could see it happening in Vietnam. To its credit, the US Army fell apart. It took too long, but finally the army essentially fell apart. Soldiers were on drugs, they were fragging officers, not following orders, and so on and the top brass wanted them out. If you look back at the military journals in the late sixties, they were writing about how we gotta get this army out of here or the army's going to collapse - much like the head of the army reserves said two or three days ago. He said this is becoming a broken force.

(Copyright 2005 Interhemispheric Resource Center.)

You're right, we should just surrender now.

What a tool.

I am not so sure that the Shia are going to be terribly interested in having us pull out right away. First the Insurgency is basically the Sunni core of the old army and if we can't put them away, I doubt that the Shia, with their underdeveloped military assests, could do so either. They need us there to take the heat from the Sunnis and crush Sunni centers of resistance (read bomb the hell out of their cities and send all of the civilians into refugee camps).

Really it is a perfect situation for the Shia. The US is undoing decades of institutional advantages enjoyed by the Sunnis while at the same time giving the Shia time to build their own institutions of control (military, political, and economic). The US is also getting weaker by the day as our soldiers and equipment are being worn down by relentless attacks from the Sunni.

They will definately want us to leave, just not yet.

72.8 Shia Alliance
18.4 Allawi

Maybe this was more a vote against the US, as has been suggested.

I don't think Bush will attempt to get Allawi's faction installed. It is to late for that.
You can aleady see the outline of their strategy. First they have reached back to Chalbai who is part of the Sistani list. They will promote him for a high position in the government. Next they will use our connections to the Kurds to put secular leaning leaders into the government.
In short they are going to do everything they can to make the secular component of the Sistani list come out on top.
Even if this works we will loose control and they will kick our troops out. That wouldn't make me unhappy.

Yay! THEOCRACY is on the march!

as much as iraq has been a clusterf*ck every step of the way, the influence of Iran, even with a clerically-minded shi'ia gov, will probably be limited. there are big cultural differences between arabs and iranians (they don't speak the same language, to begin with). Also, ayatollah sistani seems to be cool to the idea of theocracy, FWIW. I'm surprised chalabi managed to hitch his wagon to the imam's star.

ok, i'm not so surprised.

So, let's see:
1. No WMDs;
2. No ties to al Qaeda;
3. We invited terrorists that were not previously there into the country;
4. The Arab world hates us with increasing vigor;
5. We installed a government that will resemble the Iranian regime and will exclude Sunnis.

Mission accomplished?!

Maybe the Iraqis will enjoy their theocracy as much as we are enjoying ours.

Steve,

Good as far as it goes, but you're ignoring the capper:

"Simon George, co-director of an Assyrian satellite television station, says he received "at least 100 calls" from Assyrians complaining about being deprived of the vote in Christian villages around Mosul (MOH'-sul). He says Assyrian Christians were promised ballot boxes that didn't arrive.

George said he was told that in the Assyrian villages, Kurds "stopped all the elections."

http://www.wpri.com/global/story.asp?s=2877020&ClientType=Printable

So for Bush a 'successful elections in Iraq' is one in which the Christian vote is suppressed. Can we have one of those here? And how will the Christian fundamentalists in this country feel when they find out that not only did Jesus get dissed, but the 'democratically elected' ruler of Iraq that all our patriotic Christian troops died for is an Iranian non-Christian?

And why are the lefty blogs not talking about this more???

Oh, that's right: because this is all John Kerry's fault and the lefty blogs need to make sure he's dead so he can't ever pull the entire party together again and take on an incumbent president in wartime and almost beat the guy when the CW was that you either win big or lose big but it's never, ever, ever going to be a close election.

What's really increidble to me is that Allawi didn't do better than he appears to have done.

Kudos to Iraqis for having the innate savvy to realize that Allawi was a puppet hack for the American GOP.

He manipulated the media, accepted illegal donations, and essentially was a publicity whore for the purpose of winning on Sunday, and I'm glad he lost.

I really like the interim president Al-Yawer, I hope he has some say in the new government.

Very glad that pompous Allawi lost.

Observer:

What's really increidble to me is that Allawi didn't do better than he appears to have done.

So you're acknowledging that the fix wasn't in?

Kudos to Iraqis for having the innate savvy to realize that Allawi was a puppet hack for the American GOP.

So, instead of this election being a legitimate expression of the Iraqi people's will, it's really better understood as a rebuke to the Republican Party. Got it.

Next Prime Minister - Chalabi

It's one thing to rig an election in America, where everybody is fat and lazy.

and they will use weapons if need be...

It wasn't just Shiite protesting that forced this election on Bush. It was the thought of Shia militias wiping out the Brits and Italians in southern Iraq.

So, instead of this election being a legitimate expression of the Iraqi people's will, it's really better understood as a rebuke to the Republican Party. Got it.

In so much as a vote for John Kerry was a vote for the terrorists.

Scott writes:

So, let's see:
1. No WMDs;
2. No ties to al Qaeda;
3. We invited terrorists that were not previously there into the country;
4. The Arab world hates us with increasing vigor;
5. We installed a government that will resemble the Iranian regime and will exclude Sunnis.

Scott this is the same party that has a lot of believers in the Jesus myths as well! They live a fantasy life or are knowingly lying for reasons of power. Here are some Jesus myths:

1. No virgin birth. Jesus was really the son of a prostitute. NT scholars know what "son of Mary" means.

2. Jesus didn't preached a world religion, Paul is the founder of Christianity. Jesus preached a Jew only religion that spoke to the poor masses and thought the coming of God would be in his life time.

3. No health miricles but Jesus was a good psychosomatic healer.

3. The bodily resurrection didn't occur. Initially there where a lot of resurrection ideas but the dominant one was a spiritual resurrection. Paul's the guy who had a vision of Jesus but never met the guy and starts to promote the bodily resurrection years after the execution of Jesus. Paul is the founder of Christianity not Jesus and Paul helps promote the Jesus cult.

4. The was no empty tomb. An empty tomb isn't implied in Paul's story and Mark has to be credited with this idea. We're now at 70 A.D. probably near or after the Jewish war.

5. Mathew and Luke take their cues from Mark but increase the exaggerations and fraud. If there ever was a pious fraud then that award goes to Luke.

6. Christianity isn't a religion based on the word of a supernatural supreme being but a hoax with no authority on absolute truths. It's mostly built on lies.

above

how bravely spoken