Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
baghda

DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ الديموقراطيه في العراق

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Not sure how,or if, those tribal districts would be gerrymandered but without a doubt,it will not reflect the two party system in the United States has evolved into.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticl...66&section=news

 

One assembly, proportional representation. You can run as an individual if you get a petition with 500 names. Run as a party and you present a list, depending on how many votes you get the top names on the list win.

 

Basicly the israeli system, also similar to various european governments.

 

It's a good system. Lots of little parties that make fragile coalitions. One weakness, when a crisis comes up that requires an unpopular decision, the government tends to fall apart. Notice israel, which can fight very effectively since they just do it without much knesset input, but which consistently fails to make peace because any particular peace plan is almost sure to offend enough members of the coalition that they block it or they leave.

 

If the USA had a system like that we probably wouldn't be occupying iraq today.

 

They think you'll need 25,000 or so votes to win a seat. But that could be off. Maybe more people will vote than usual, so it will take more votes. Or maybe a lot of little hopeless parties will siphon off a lot of votes so you can win easier this time than ever again.

 

Who in iraq is likely to get 25,000 to 50,000 votes? They must be known and not seem evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest_tajer

Got this by email, don't know if it is real one

 

>Letter from Barzani and Talabani to President Bush

>

>June 1, 2004, His Excellency President George W. Bush

>President of the United States of America

>The White House

>Washington, DC

>

>Dear Mr. President:

>

>We are writing this letter to your Excellency to present our views and

>concerns on the new Iraqi Interim Government, the Kurdish position and the

>future of the country.

>

>America has no better friend than the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. A year

>ago, our peshmerga forces fought side by side with the American forces for

>the liberation of Iraq, taking more casualties than any other US ally.

>Today, Kurdistan remains the only secure and stable part of Iraq. We note

>that, in contrast to the Arab areas of Iraq, no coalition soldier has been

>killed in the area controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government.

>

>The people of Kurdistan continue to embrace American values, to welcome US

>troops, and to support your program for the liberation of Iraq. Our

>Kurdistan Regional Government has given up many of its current freedoms in

>the interest of helping your administering authorities reach compromises

>with other Iraqis. We were therefore bitterly disappointed when your

>special representative advised us that a Kurd could be neither Prime

>Minister nor President of Iraq. We were told that these positions must go

>to a Shiite Arab and Sunni Arab respectively.

>

>Iraq is a country of two main nationalities, Arabs and Kurds. It seems

>reasonable that the Arabs might get one of the top jobs (of their choice)

>but then the other should go to a Kurd.

>

>We also believe the decision to use sectarian quotas for the top two jobs

>directly contradicts the Coalition's repeatedly stated position that

>democratic Iraq's government should not be based on ethnic or religious

>criteria, a position the US wrote into the Transitional Administrative Law.

>

>The people of Kurdistan will no longer accept second-class citizenship in

>Iraq. In Saddam's time and before, Kurds were frequently given the Vice

>President or deputy positions, which were window dressing without power. We

 

>had hoped the new Iraq would be different for the Kurdish people.

>

>Ever since liberation, we have detected a bias against Kurdistan from the

>American authorities for reasons that we cannot comprehend. At the outset

>of the occupation, the coalition seized the oil-for-food revenues that had

>been specifically earmarked for Kurdistan and redistributed them to the

>rest of Iraq-in spite of the fact that Kurdistan received far less of these

 

>revenues per capita than other Iraqis and notwithstanding the fact that our

 

>region was the one most destroyed by Saddam Hussein. CPA actively

>discouraged the equality of the Kurdish and Arabic languages, and

>repeatedly tried to aEURoederecognizeaEUR the Kurdistan Regional

Government

>(Iraq's only elected government ever) in favor of a system based on

>Saddam's 18 governorates. US officials have demeaned the peshmerga, calling

 

>this disciplined military force that was America's battlefield comrade in

>arms, aEURoemilitia.aEUR? In official statements, it is rare for the US

>government or the CPA even to refer to Kurdistan or the Kurdish people.

>

>We will be loyal friends to America even if our support is not always

>reciprocated. Our fate is too closely linked to your fortunes in Iraq. If

>the forces of freedom prevail elsewhere in Iraq, we know that, because of

>our alliance with the United States, we will be marked for vengeance. We do

 

>ask for some specific reassurance for this transitional period so as to

>enable us to participate more fully in the interim government.

>specifically, we ask that:

>

>The Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) be incorporated into the new UN

>Security Council Resolution or otherwise recognized as law binding on the

>transitional government, both before and after elections. If the TAL is

>abrogated, the Kurdistan Regional Government will have no choice but to

>refrain from participating in the central government and its institutions,

>not to take part in the national elections, and to bar representatives of

>the central Government from Kurdistan.

>

>The United States commit to protect the people and government of Kurdistan

>in the event insurrection and disorder lead to a withdrawal from the rest

>of Iraq.

>

>The Coalition carry through on commitments to reverse the Arabization of

>Kurdish lands and move forward to settle the status of Kirkuk in accordance

 

>with the wishes of its people, excluding settlers but including those

>ethnically cleansed by Saddam Hussein.

>

>The oil-for-food revenues unfairly taken from Kurdistan last year be

>restored in the entirety, and that Kurdistan receive its per capita share

>of the $19 billion in reconstruction assistance appropriated by the

>Congress.

>

>The United States support our plans to own and manage Kurdistan's natural

>resources, and in particular our efforts to develop new petroleum resources

 

>in the Kurdistan Region, where the previous regime sought to block all

>exploration and development that might benefit the Kurdistan people.

>

>The United States open a consulate in Irbil, and that it encourage other

>coalition partners to do the same. For the people of Kurdistan, it is vital

 

>that we maintain our direct links to the outside world and not solely

>dependent on a Baghdad where we are not considered fully equal citizens.

>

>The United States and the United Nations state clearly that the use of

>ethnic and confessional criteria for the selections of the interim

>government does not set a precedent for a future Iraqi government, and that

 

>Kurds are eligible for the posts of Prime Minister and President.

>

>If ethnic criteria are to be used to exclude Kurds from the top two

>positions in the interim government, we think it fair that Kurdistan be

>compensated with a disproportionate share of relevant ministries in the

>interim government.

>

>Mr. President, we know that these are difficult days for all of us who

>believe the cause of Iraq's freedom was worth fighting for. The Kurdish

>people continue to admire your confident leadership, your vision of a free

>Iraq, and your personal courage. We are certain that you will agree that

>Kurdistan should not be penalized for its friendship and support for the

>United States.

>

>Sincerely yours,

>

>Masoud Barzani

>Kurdistan Democratic Party

>

>Jalal Talabani

>Patriotic Union of Kurdistan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest_Tajer

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_17_10_04_22.html

 

In Arabic, report in Alrafidian Iraqi news. Grouwing signs that the three factions Kurds/shia/sunni Arab might go to ellections in seperate ..

Altabani said that he will go in a united list with Barazani.. A shia representative of Aldawa party told the news that there is talks with SIRH about going together ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mustefser
I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

 

Have a look to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0930-15.htm

 

Thought the article is so gloomy, The last staement summrized all the issue.. It is a battel with with all Iraqi ani freedom.. Are we going to let the terrorist win this battel?

The forieger writer is expressing all the fears that he might experienced, the question is do Iraqis want the ellections.. ? The last poll showed about 80% would like to go for it.. Is that telling us any thing.. These are the one who live under the circumstances that the writer is talking about, why do they dare risking their lifes asking for ellection? the answer as I see it is that this is the best way to defeat the terrorists..

Are we going to help Iraqis , or help terror?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mustefser

http://www.daralhayat.com/arab_news/levant....txt/story.html

 

In Arabic.. The Islamic "Suni" party in Iraq warring the Sunni Scholar committe from bycotting the Ellection.. The part warned that this might degrade the sunni representation in the new parlmant..

The pary added that the ellection will happen as there is a greater push by international powers to accept any result by the ellection. The Sunnis might miss last chance if they insist on bycotting it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an American who has tried desperately to understand what is happening in Iraq. I have looked to many sources: news services, weblogs, forums, etc., but I must admit that I am still unsure about what is the "right" thing for my government to do.

 

I believe that president Bush lied and manufatured reasons to go to war in Iraq. I believe his true intention has always been to establish a stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East. It seems to me that Bush himself honestly believes that accomplishing this task would be a tremendous benefit to the Iraqi people as well as the USA by virtue of having a politcal ally in the region. I do NOT believe that Bush went to war in hopes of achieving financial gain. I think the opinion that we went to war in Iraq in order to get cheap/free oil is simply ridicualous, given the cost of the war efforts.

 

But regardless of Bush's intentions, I would like to see some sort of result that benefits the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you Iraqis really want. It seems that the most vocal among you want the US forces out of Iraq, no matter what the cost. You are willing to kill as many innocent people as it takes for you to get your way. If this is the true face of the Iraqi people, then I say to badWord with you. Let us take our troops back home so that Iraq can become the world capital of people who hate the USA. You can have the worst USA-hating government on the planet. Then when you establish terrorist training camps all over your country, we will send more bombs than you can imagine. You know this is what could happen if the "insurgents" take over.

 

But as I said, it is difficult for me to understand what Iraqis really want, because I see such a variety of opinions. There are voices coming out in favor of democracy, but they are not nearly as loud as the voices of those who want us to leave. I get the impression that most Iraqis are afraid to speak their true opinons. Do many of you agree with the insurgents because you are afraid of them? Maybe we need to tell our troops over there to be more violent and threatening to your citizens. Because if you are more afraid of our troops than you are of the insurgents, then maybe you will say that you support democracy.

 

Whatever happens in Iraq, I think it will ultimately be up to the Iraqi people. If you want the insurgents to rule you, then either support them or remain quiet. Both are pretty much the same. If you want democracy, you are going to have to stand up and be heard over the sound of explosions and screaming hostages.

 

As I said, I am an American who has tried hard to understand what you want, and I honestly can't tell. Most Americans don't really try. Most Americans read about poeple getting bombed and kidnapped, and don't bother to find out anything else. Most Americans think Iraqis are violent, USA-hating animals, and think we should just get our troops home as soon as we can.

 

-Imp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

improvius,

The simple answer is hiding under the fact that you just mentioned:

It seems that the most vocal among you want the US forces out of Iraq

MOST VOCAL , indeed you are only allowed to hear the most vocal.. I am an Iraqi American, I am following the American media and would not blame you saying all what you consider as absolute facts, without even care to double checking if they are correct.. Thanks to the media that made you so confident in what they fed.

 

Just to check your understandings , did you asked your self the following questions:

If Iraqis are really what you had mentioned, then :

1- Why are there so long queues of young men and women in front of military registration offices, despite the routine killing and bombing ?

2-Why are majory of Iraqis, at least 80% , not against liberation thought came with occupation.. That is in a country where the world occupation, means the most bad thing in the universe, more bad than what ever "badword " that you might thought of.

3- Why Same majority are going for democracy and would not be scared to be killed while voting, considering election as it's corner step.

 

There many other questions..

I think your question might better re-phrased to be

Why the majority is not vocal.. And also why American media, just like the Arab media is not telling the real story about Iraqis. ?

Let me know first if you thought about the three points above, then I will try to explain my answers to later questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rodi

I am just an ordinary American. I go to work 5 days a week, I try to relax and have some fun on the weekend. I am married, have 3 grown kids and 3 grandkids. I was in the US military when the Vietnam conflict ended. The bank and I have a house and 2 cars. My wife and I both work technology related jobs. I am jewish and my wife is christian. We like to travel, and we are currently sponsoring 2 teachers from Pakistan that are studying in our area, and yes they are muslim. I have sent paperback books to US soldiers to read and I have sent toys, colored pencils and paper to Iraq for Iraqi children. That is my background, and who I am.

 

I have great hopes for Iraq, and frankly for all people of the world, though I recognize how very hard it is to face all the decisions we, (people and nations) have to make. Yes, I would like to see Iraq succeed, and I will even say it would be somewhat to fly in the face of all those around the world who said Iraq isn't ready and/or capable of democratic rule of herself.

 

What I really wanted to do was send the Iraqi people a message, but I know I can't really get it out there. This is as close as I can get.

 

We can't make freedom for you. You have to make it happen. Help it happen. and allow it to happen. You can't sit and wait for it to happen, or it won't.

 

As you have noticed, I don't sit in Washington making policy, but I don't see any way that we went to Iraq to be occupiers. It isn't our way, it isn't our wishes, but we do need to be there a while.

 

Try to be patient with us. We don't have all the answers, we don't even know all the questions. My personal expectations are that to have a democratic Iraq be successful it will take at least 5 years.

 

If the US really went to Iraq for the oil we would just be taking it, not selling it in the name of the Iraqi people on the open market.

 

If the war was only about cheap oil, the US could have worked to lift the embargo. I am feel sure Saddam if left in power would have been pumping all he could produce to make that money pour into his pockets, (even if not those of his nation).

 

When bad people blow up a pipeline, they aren't really hurting the US, we have many other markets open to us, though we might pay a little more. It is really hurting the Iraqi reconstruction efforts.

 

I am sure the US didn't go to Iraq only concerned about her WMDs, but I am sure they were part of the situation.

 

Those who are not revisionist and look back will find that in 1999 the UN thought Saddam had WMDs, President Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs, the world community thought Saddam had WMDs, and British and American intlligence services thought he had, and I feel pretty sure Iran thought Saddam had WMDs. It didn't really matter in some ways that he didn't, he wouldn't let it be verified, and I think he was purposefully playing enough games to keep the world guessing.

 

I frankly doubt that many will miss Saddam, only his cronies in power, and those whose pockets he was lining.

 

I am not a true student of history, but I have read a book or two. Although the war in Europe was officially over in 1945, there were still isolated pockets of violence and guerilla activity until 1947 in Europe, not counting the wars of independence that were touched off in the aftermath of WWII.

 

Furthermore, if I am remembering correctly the American Revolution which began in 1776 lasted until 1781, at least 5 years, and I don't think everything was ratified by the individual states until 1783.

 

I have read of the many atrocities commited on both sides of that conflict as well. Blood and feelings ran high. Loyalists to the British crown burned barns and killed cattle belonging to their rebel neighbors as well as shot and hung them, and vice versa. Many loyalists packed up and moved to England during the conflict due to concerns for their security. Rebels were hunted down by the British and Hessian, (German mercenary) troops and killed. Loyalist and rebel families were threatened for the actions and beliefs of other family members. Families were kicked out of their homes and made to live in unheated barns while occupying British and Hessian troops lived in their homes and ate their food, in a time when you didn't just go to the market to get more, it might be until next harvest. Roadside ambushes were not uncommon.

 

This may sound more familiar to our Iraqi friends as what they have seen in their country than it does to most Americans, as our history books tend to gloss it over now. Perhaps because the British are still our good friends and allies, and the Germans are our friends, if not the allies at the moment.

 

I guess the message I am trying to give is to hang on and work toward your freedom. It can happen, and even if it is not smooth sailing, it is still possible. It was not so neat and clean and easy here as some might think. Blood was spilled and lives were ruined.

 

I even think I read the American statesman Benjamin Franklin's son was a loyalist govenor of New Jersey and fled to England before the end of the war and father and son did not speak thereafter. Don't quote me on this, this is just a recollection. Do some research.

 

What I know for sure is not possible is for the US to "win Iraqi freedom" and then hand it to you. We do want to extend a hand of friendship and hope that together we can make the world a better and safer place, for all of us and our children. We surely can't do it on our own, or even with a coalition of outsiders. Iraq has to work from within to help it happen.

 

Yes we will make mistakes. We will trust the wrong people some of the time, we will believe the wrong information some of the time, and this will make us distrustful of all Iraqis at times.

 

Yes we will make mistakes concerning your culture, we are mostly ignorant of it, but we can't learn it without your assistance. You will meet Americans who are not the best of people when their superiors aren't looking, but we will see them in your culture as well I think. In this way, people are people.

 

Rodi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mustefser

Ron,

 

I don't have to answer your kind and turstful call, more than what is mentioned on this website.. You need to revisit your understanding about what is going on in Iraq.. Most Iraqis, as polls showed, are as per your expectation..

They have one issue though. For some time they felt that the American might not be serious about democracy in Iraq. However, with Americans voted to Bush , that fear was kind of lessen. Iraqis are working hard to defeat terrorists by establishing the first Arab real democratic free state..

Below is a link , in Arabic, hope that I have time to translate. It is a report from Iraq talking about Iraqis .. Most of them are considering Bush as trustful librator.. Minority though , specially who lost power, considering him like Hulague.

 

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_04_11_04_33.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_04_11_04_34.html

 

In Arabic.. Intersting report.. The british embassedor to Iraq met Shikh Alnasiree.. What is intersting is that Shiekh Alnasree is one of most respected clergy in Nasria , south Iraq..

Alnasree reportedly talked about the upset by people seeing the coalition undermining the people in the south..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bostonian
Most Americans think Iraqis are violent, USA-hating animals, and think we should just get our troops home as soon as we can.

What this guy says, this is not true. Most Americans do not think that Iraqis are violent, American-hating animals. I want everyone who reads this board to understand that this is not a true statement.

 

The Americans who do think this way do not understand or believe what this war is about and why the US is in Iraq. These people still do not understand that this war is against Saddam Hussein, the Ba'ath regime, and anyone else who is trying to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy. This is what GWB said, and we agree with him, 58 million of us. (I said it even before GWB, but I was not president.)

 

Most Americans believe, in their heart of hearts (as we say), that it was necessary and correct to remove Saddam Hussein (may he rot) and that Iraq would prosper and be happy after we did that. Most Americans believe that this will be better for us, too, no matter what Iraq should choose afterwards. It is better for 25 million people to live freely and not under a dictator. It is better for the world.

 

Still, I want to say, it is good that he asks what you think. You know that our newspapers and TV are very biased and we do not hear from Iraq directly except through the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...