• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq Rejects U.S. Talk of Adjusting Vote Result

Drift3r

Guest
http://www.reuters.com/newsArt...ws&storyID=7179906

Iraq Rejects U.S. Talk of Adjusting Vote Result
Sun Dec 26, 2004 01:07 PM ET
By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's election body rejected a suggestion in Washington it adjust the results of next month's vote to benefit the Sunni minority if low turnout in Sunni areas means Shi'ites win an exaggerated majority in the new assembly.

Speaking of "unacceptable" interference, Electoral Commission spokesman Farid Ayar said: "Who wins, wins. That is the way it is. That is the way it will be in the election."

U.S. diplomats in Baghdad, at pains to keep their role in the election discreet, declined comment on a New York Times report from Washington which said Sunnis might be granted extra seats if the community's vote was judged to have been too low.

U.S. officials have expressed concern that if the ballot on Jan. 30 fails to reflect Iraq's sectarian and ethnic mix due to violence and boycotts in Sunni areas, then the assembly will lack legitimacy. But any attempt to fix the proportion of seats going to the main groups in advance could have the same effect.

"The Americans are expressing their views and those aren't always the same as the Commission's," Ayar told Reuters.

"But the Commission is absolutely independent. It is not acceptable for anyone to interfere in our business."

Some leaders among Sunni Arabs, a 20-percent minority who dominated the country under Saddam Hussein and before, have called for the election to be put off because violence in the north and west will make it hard for Sunnis to vote.

But Shi'ites, who account for 60 percent of the 26 million population, are keen to exercise their electoral weight.

The New York Times said Shi'ite leaders had been approached about the idea. Shi'ites would be reluctant to see the minority shut out of power if that means more violence, like the twin suicide car bombs that rocked their holy cities a week ago.

Next month's vote will elect 275 legislators who will appoint a president and government and oversee the drafting of a new constitution over the next year.

In scattered violence in the north and west, a police colonel was assassinated in Baghdad, the latest of many. Local witnesses said a civilian was killed in two hours of fighting near Samarra between U.S. forces and insurgents, and two civilians were killed in clashes in the desert town of Qaim.

Ansar al-Sunna, a militant group that said it carried out a suicide bomb attack on a U.S. mess hall in Mosul last week killing 22 people, Sunday released a video tape apparently showing the bombing and preparations for the attack.

Police in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf said they were making progress in catching those responsible for the bombing last week that killed 52 people. Along with a bomb that killed 14 in nearby Kerbala, it was seen as an attempt to spark sectarian conflict in the run-up to the election.

Police chief Ghalib al-Jazairi said one man in detention had confessed to attending a guerrilla training camp in Syria. Iraq accuses Syrian intelligence of aiding former Saddam loyalists and Islamist groups in Iraq. Another man had been arrested who had filmed the scene before and after the bombing.

Police had also found a house where explosives, apparently for making car bombs, had been stored, Jazairi said.

Some violence is aimed directly at those publicly linked to the election. Three Electoral Commission officials were killed in Baghdad a week ago. Sunday, one of the 100-odd parties running next month said a senior member had been assassinated.

"We have lost today a hero killed by terrorists. Mohammed Abd Al-Hussein was a member of the DPIN's leadership and most of all a friend with a brave heart. He lived his life to protect the innocent and to fight for democracy and peace in Iraq," the Democratic Party of the Iraqi Nation said in a statement.

It said he received death threats after a demonstration at the Syrian embassy which accused Damascus of aiding insurgents.

SUSPECTS DETAINED

In Baghdad, the Defense Ministry said National Guard forces had killed 26 insurgents in southern Baghdad after the troops were ambushed. It was not clear when precisely the incident occurred. Another 11 guerrillas were killed in a battle around apartment blocks in Iskandariya, south of the capital.

In Kirkuk, the U.S. military said National Guards arrested 41 people suspected of belonging to Ansar al-Sunna, the Islamist group which claimed responsibility for the Mosul bombing, or a group led by al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"In response to an intelligence breakthrough, an Iraqi National Guard platoon took action against an Ansar al-Sunna cell and an Tawhid wal-Jihad cell operating in Kirkuk on Dec. 23," the statement said, giving no further details.
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
http://www.reuters.com/newsArt...ws&storyID=7179906

Iraq Rejects U.S. Talk of Adjusting Vote Result
Sun Dec 26, 2004 01:07 PM ET

In scattered violence in the north and west, a police colonel was assassinated in Baghdad, the latest of many. Local witnesses said a civilian was killed in two hours of fighting near Samarra between U.S. forces and insurgents, and two civilians were killed in clashes in the desert town of Qaim.

Ansar al-Sunna, a militant group that said it carried out a suicide bomb attack on a U.S. mess hall in Mosul last week killing 22 people, Sunday released a video tape apparently showing the bombing and preparations for the attack.

Police in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf said they were making progress in catching those responsible for the bombing last week that killed 52 people. Along with a bomb that killed 14 in nearby Kerbala, it was seen as an attempt to spark sectarian conflict in the run-up to the election.

Police chief Ghalib al-Jazairi said one man in detention had confessed to attending a guerrilla training camp in Syria. Iraq accuses Syrian intelligence of aiding former Saddam loyalists and Islamist groups in Iraq. Another man had been arrested who had filmed the scene before and after the bombing.

Police had also found a house where explosives, apparently for making car bombs, had been stored, Jazairi said.

Some violence is aimed directly at those publicly linked to the election. Three Electoral Commission officials were killed in Baghdad a week ago. Sunday, one of the 100-odd parties running next month said a senior member had been assassinated.

"We have lost today a hero killed by terrorists. Mohammed Abd Al-Hussein was a member of the DPIN's leadership and most of all a friend with a brave heart. He lived his life to protect the innocent and to fight for democracy and peace in Iraq," the Democratic Party of the Iraqi Nation said in a statement.

It said he received death threats after a demonstration at the Syrian embassy which accused Damascus of aiding insurgents.

SUSPECTS DETAINED

In Baghdad, the Defense Ministry said National Guard forces had killed 26 insurgents in southern Baghdad after the troops were ambushed. It was not clear when precisely the incident occurred. Another 11 guerrillas were killed in a battle around apartment blocks in Iskandariya, south of the capital.

In Kirkuk, the U.S. military said National Guards arrested 41 people suspected of belonging to Ansar al-Sunna, the Islamist group which claimed responsibility for the Mosul bombing, or a group led by al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"In response to an intelligence breakthrough, an Iraqi National Guard platoon took action against an Ansar al-Sunna cell and an Tawhid wal-Jihad cell operating in Kirkuk on Dec. 23," the statement said, giving no further details.
:: reading ::
:: Re-reading ::
:: Re-re-reading ::

Nope... Nothing to do with your topic title except the by-line....
 
Iraq's election body rejected a suggestion in Washington it adjust the results of next month's vote to benefit the Sunni minority if low turnout in Sunni areas means Shi'ites win an exaggerated majority in the new assembly.

Speaking of "unacceptable" interference, Electoral Commission spokesman Farid Ayar said: "Who wins, wins. That is the way it is. That is the way it will be in the election."
The Iraqis want a democratic election more than Bush who is pushing for Democracy by Force.


Amazing.
 
Topic Summary: Hey Bush it's not Democracy if you rig the vote ! You made your Shia burka now wear it !
You guys are a little weird sometimes. 😛 The Americans merely "express[ed] their views". A view which in my mind is much like trying to put a large state and a small state (by population) on a more even footing with the thought of creating a republic, not a direct democracy. You remember that stuff about trying to prevent a tyranny of the majority over the minority?

The view is also all about minimizing post-election violence and trying to imbue as much legitimacy into the election as possible:

The New York Times said Shi'ite leaders had been approached about the idea. Shi'ites would be reluctant to see the minority shut out of power if that means more violence, like the twin suicide car bombs that rocked their holy cities a week ago.

I assume the theory of the day is Bush and co. are afraid a Shia-ruled Iraq will mate with Iran? If so, I doubt many in the administration are worried. People who've been under a dictatorship for as many years as the Iraqis aren't probably about to leap into bed with another nation's government - they're going to want to take a solo run.

Makes sense to me, but I suppose since this (what I figure is common sense) doesn't mesh with the predictions of those who so badly want to watch Pres. Bush fail in Iraq, we won't find agreement.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Iraq's election body rejected a suggestion in Washington it adjust the results of next month's vote to benefit the Sunni minority if low turnout in Sunni areas means Shi'ites win an exaggerated majority in the new assembly.

Speaking of "unacceptable" interference, Electoral Commission spokesman Farid Ayar said: "Who wins, wins. That is the way it is. That is the way it will be in the election."
The Iraqis want a democratic election more than Bush who is pushing for Democracy by Force.


Amazing.

In this scenario allowing them to choose the country's leaders so soon is still a BAD idea. What we should have done from the get-go was lay the smack down so hard that they BEGGED us to stop and then dictate terms to them for several years until they get over this "let's blow up the folks who disagree with us" bullsh!t mentality.

It worked in Japan.

It worked in Germany.

It can work in Iraq, too. This "gentle" war idea is stupid.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
/gasp

they suggested the a benefit for the Sunni minority?!?!?!?!?!

Terrible people in the administration!

So by that reasoning, since black people support Democrats at over 80%, then more Democrats should be "Placed" into government, regardless of votes, to appease the minority?
 
In this scenario allowing them to choose the country's leaders so soon is still a BAD idea. What we should have done from the get-go was lay the smack down so hard that they BEGGED us to stop and then dictate terms to them for several years until they get over this "let's blow up the folks who disagree with us" bullsh!t mentality.

It worked in Japan.

It worked in Germany.

It can work in Iraq, too. This "gentle" war idea is stupid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoo-Hoo, hey ! Wake-up - there ain't no Government and its Army to fight there.
So you go into a crumpled country and terrorize it's civilian population ?
For what purpose ? To 'Out-Nazi' hopw WWII Germany invaded its neighbors ?
To 'Out-Communist' how the Soviet Union crushed their neighbors ?

Just breeds a bigger and more resentful base of 'Patriot Underground'.

Who did you think was going to win the upcoming election since day one ?
the majority of the Iraq population is Shiite - like 60%.
If ALL of the Kurds and all of the Sunnis went the other way in any vote they would still lose.

Welcome to the Iraqi version of Iranian rule by religious zealots.


 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
In this scenario allowing them to choose the country's leaders so soon is still a BAD idea. What we should have done from the get-go was lay the smack down so hard that they BEGGED us to stop and then dictate terms to them for several years until they get over this "let's blow up the folks who disagree with us" bullsh!t mentality.

It worked in Japan.

It worked in Germany.

It can work in Iraq, too. This "gentle" war idea is stupid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoo-Hoo, hey ! Wake-up - there ain't no Government and its Army to fight there.
So you go into a crumpled country and terrorize it's civilian population ?
For what purpose ? To 'Out-Nazi' hopw WWII Germany invaded its neighbors ?
To 'Out-Communist' how the Soviet Union crushed their neighbors ?

Just breeds a bigger and more resentful base of 'Patriot Underground'.

Who did you think was going to win the upcoming election since day one ?
the majority of the Iraq population is Shiite - like 60%.
If ALL of the Kurds and all of the Sunnis went the other way in any vote they would still lose.

Welcome to the Iraqi version of Iranian rule by religious zealots.

Yes...thats right. All Shi'ites are religious zealots who desire to become part of Greater Iran!
 
Woo doggy....it's gettin pretty deep in here.

Anyone have some rubbers I can wear? I'll need a shovel to help clear this thread out as well.
 
I overheard a radio talk show on the Iraq elections. They analyzed what it takes for a country to be free and fair. The common perception is that if they hold democratic elections, that should be enough to declare the country free and fair. However, some people argued that elections are a part of the whole picture and the other is to always protect the rights of minority groups. A country is not free and fair if the majority (Shiites) can control the rights of the minority (Sunni).
 
Originally posted by: TuxDave
I overheard a radio talk show on the Iraq elections. They analyzed what it takes for a country to be free and fair. The common perception is that if they hold democratic elections, that should be enough to declare the country free and fair. However, some people argued that elections are a part of the whole picture and the other is to always protect the rights of minority groups. A country is not free and fair if the majority (Shiites) can control the rights of the minority (Sunni).

Or how the Sunni (power majority) controlled the rights of the Shiite (power minority) under Saddam.

 
Minority RIGHTS, Majority RULES.

That, and please tellm e how the "Sunnis" can be left out? That is what I think about sometimes. Are we saying they won't get enough pork once their congress system gets rolling? They'll be plenty of that to go around like there is ehre. We call Iraq dominated by "sunnis" just because SAddam and all his relatives were sunnis (and i doubt giving them power because they were sunnis played as big of a role as his relatives. And you know how Tikrit and the area was bettered? I doubt that was Sunni as much as Saddam and his ego infalted mind wanted the entire AREA to look nice. Remember, this is a man who thought he was as great as the old Sumerian Kings, and in the Garden of Babylon he ad bricks that said "Laid in the Era of Saddam Hussien". I wouldn't be suprised if he wanted an entire fifty mile radious around his birth place paved in marbel)

The problem is I know the religous "split" between the sunni and shi'ite, and unless its gerrymandering I don't see HOW they can be denied "rights".
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Woo doggy....it's gettin pretty deep in here.

Anyone have some rubbers I can wear? I'll need a shovel to help clear this thread out as well.

I'll give you one if you'll stretch it to at least to cover your nose.

 
Hey, I have an idea - how about we stop wringing our hands anticipating disaster and focus on how we can best secure the whole voting initiative so this isn't even an issue.

Oh wait... that might be to "positive" for some around here...

CsG
 
I don't see the positive for readjust the vote results to benefit the Sunnis. If anything, it will only anger the Kurds and the Shiites.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Genx87
/gasp

they suggested the a benefit for the Sunni minority?!?!?!?!?!

Terrible people in the administration!

So by that reasoning, since black people support Democrats at over 80%, then more Democrats should be "Placed" into government, regardless of votes, to appease the minority?

Oooooh... nice slap!
 
So instead of retaining the artificial borders, why not balkanize the country by eithnic/religious group? (though I realize that's really discussion for a different thread)
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
So instead of retaining the artificial borders, why not balkanize the country by eithnic/religious group? (though I realize that's really discussion for a different thread)

You'll still have many Shi'ites in Sunni Area, still many Sunnies in Kurdish Areas....it isn't some clear cut line that we'd like to beleive~
Though in terms of our interests we'd like that better because we could negotiate cheaper oil contracts. But to break apart the country isn't the thing to do. Unlike the Balkins, atleast over here its all the same religion with essentially two ethnic groups.- Kurds and Arabs.
 
Back
Top