More telling news about Iraqi "democracy"

sam h · #1 10-04-2005, 03:41 AM

The Shiites and Kurds cut a deal to amend the ratification process for the constitutional charter. Rather than requiring two thirds of the vote in at least three provinces to reject the constitution, opponents now need two thirds of all registered voters in at least three provinces. Given that overall turnout in the previous elections was only 60% and significantly lower than that in Sunni provinces, the move basically ensures that the constitution will get approved.

With the process clearly a sham, we will now see how the Sunnis react. If significant elements within the Sunni leadership call for a boycott, this will really undermine the already slim chances of keeping the country together.

There is a moderate Sunni leadership, but they can't possibly win over constituents if the Shiites and Kurds give them nothing to offer. The Shiite and Kurd strategy at this point seems to be to force the Sunnis to either (a) acquiesce to complete marginalization in the new power structure or (b) engage in a sectarian conflict that will leave the country divided and the Sunnis without either the oil in the south or the north.

I think this is slowly beginning to dawn on the Bush administration, and that is why there have been rumblings about supporting the return of a secular centrist alliance led by Allawi.

newfant · #2 10-04-2005, 04:20 AM

It's a [censored] sammich and we're all gonna' have to take a bite.

[censored] · #3 10-04-2005, 04:44 AM

well hopefully this will ignite the civil war that Iraq so desperately needs. Once that gets out of the way and all those old grudges, feuds and power struggles are cleaned out, they can go about the business of making a country, or two or three.

etgryphon · #4 10-04-2005, 08:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
well hopefully this will ignite the civil war that Iraq so desperately needs. Once that gets out of the way and all those old grudges, feuds and power struggles are cleaned out, they can go about the business of making a country, or two or three.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

MICHAEL

How bad do you think it's gonna be?

CLEMENZA

Pretty goddamn bad. Probably all the other Families will line up against us. That's alright -- this thing's gotta happen every five years or so -- ten years -- helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know you got to stop them at the beginning, like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, They should never've let him get away with that. They were just asking for big trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Godfather. True for the ages...

-Gryph

nicky g · #5 10-04-2005, 09:11 AM

Presumably they aren't insisting that a majority of all registered voters approve of it for it to pass? What a stitch up.

[censored] · #6 10-04-2005, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well hopefully this will ignite the civil war that Iraq so desperately needs. Once that gets out of the way and all those old grudges, feuds and power struggles are cleaned out, they can go about the business of making a country, or two or three.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

MICHAEL

How bad do you think it's gonna be?

CLEMENZA

Pretty goddamn bad. Probably all the other Families will line up against us. That's alright -- this thing's gotta happen every five years or so -- ten years -- helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know you got to stop them at the beginning, like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, They should never've let him get away with that. They were just asking for big trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Godfather. True for the ages...

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was thinking of too. I really do think though that people underestimate how good a civil war would be for Iraq.

bobman0330 · #7 10-04-2005, 02:27 PM

This is horrible. Hopefully Bush or the UN or someone will straighten these morons out.

nicky g · #8 10-04-2005, 03:39 PM

Indeed they aren't:

"The new interpretation keeps the clause stipulating that only half of actual voters are needed for the text to be adopted."

UN Condemns Iraq Charter Change

Unbelievable.

tolbiny · #9 10-04-2005, 03:59 PM

I would be inclinded to agree with you, except that such a conflict would be tampered and tinkered with by outside powers who think they know best, or think that they can contorl the outcome for their own benefit.

sam h · #10 10-04-2005, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I was thinking of too. I really do think though that people underestimate how good a civil war would be for Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

A civil war would be good for the Shiite and Kurd elites, who would win (with US help) and impose terms. It would be bad for the general Sunni population (who would get ravaged) and the general Shiite population (which would get targeted intensely by Sunni guerrillas). It might be good for Iran (which would take the Shiite side, and then play their support for the Shiites off against the US and gain leverage in brinksmanship about their own nuclear ambitions). It would be bad for Turkey (which would face the possibility of a Kurdish state emerging). Finally, it would be terrible for the US (because it might lead to the creation of a Sunni state very hospitable to terrorism and because it would even furthe alienate other Sunni Arab populations in the area, pushing them that much further toward extremism.)