0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 12:39 pm
Quote:
UNAMI
4 January 2005
Ref: 1913

Iraq: Special report on elections


Elections in Iraq, whether they happen as scheduled on 30 January or not, are sure to be historic. Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi recently reiterated that the elections would be held in January.

US President George Bush has also reaffirmed the need for them to take place.

But with the recent killing of three election workers, even Bush is now talking about the relentless violence affecting the vote, something that wasn't mentioned by officials before.

Regardless, United Nations technical staff are in the country, many of them coming directly from the Afghan election, to help Iraqis get an estimated 9,000 polling stations ready to elect a 275-member assembly.

The assembly will write and approve a new constitution. Once the new constitution is approved by voters in a referendum, a vote to elect a new government is expected to be held.

Women will be involved in larger numbers than ever before as a rule written by US-led administrators calls for at least 25 percent of the assembly to be female.

Potential voters on the street complain that all they want is basic infrastructure to work and question if it will be safe to go to the polls. In the north, where things are more calm, voters are to pick an 111-member autonomous assembly on 30 January.

Kurdish parties are also campaigning heavily in other parts of Iraq, looking to pick up more power and influence across the country.

More than 70 political blocs have put together lists, ranging from 15 to 275 candidates, for voters to choose from. Candidates will be chosen proportionally based on how many voters choose their lists. With all the uncertainty, heading into the campaign season election officials met the estimated 230 parties several times to discuss the rules they had to follow.

"We're working now with the political parties to make sure they know how to campaign," Abdul Hussain Hendawi, head of the Independent Electoral Commission, told IRIN.

While places like Najaf and Karbala in the south were filled with banners and other election paraphernalia a few weeks ago, the campaign season feels very quiet compared to other places in the Middle East where elections have been held, according to a US official who declined to be named.

VOTERS WORRY

Most voters are adamant that the poll should go ahead, no matter how violent it gets. But some wonder if it wouldn't be better to hold voting over a period of days to create more safety - an idea put forth by Allawi and later retracted.

If fewer people are gathered at polling stations at any one time, they'll be less of a potential target for suicide bombers, Mustafa Ibrahim, 24, a computer technician, told IRIN.

"If it lasts a week or two, that would be better, because it's a different situation here every day," Ibrahim said. "If it's [held on just] one day, insurgents might block the roads or plant a bomb and stop people."

More people will participate if they wait a few days to see how things are going before committing themselves to voting, Adil Mahmoud told IRIN. "If I feel it's safe for me and my family, I will go," Mahmoud said. "But even if I decide to go, can I let my mum go there? What if she needs to run away?"

The Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General, Lakhdar Brahimi, said a vote could only take place "if first and foremost security improves". Daily car bombs and mortar attacks around the country have kept residents on edge, along with sporadic electricity that is on for only about four hours per day.

"There should be security for people first, so they should put the election date off. We also need reconciliation between Iraqis first. That will bring security," Mohammed al-Ensari, a Sunni Muslim working on election issues with the Iraqi Independent Electoral Commission, told IRIN.

More than 20 minority Sunni Muslim parties have called for the election to be put on hold, although several registered themselves by the deadline.

At the same time, two main Shi'ite Muslim parties led by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani have announced a list of 228 candidates after weeks of haggling. The list also includes some Sunni tribal leaders, some Kurdish members and some Sunni independents.

Members of some groups on the Shi'ite list said their platform would include a call for the withdrawal of US and other foreign troops from Iraq.

"I'm not scared to campaign or to vote, but maybe it's a good idea to extend voting," Bushra al-Kihani, head of the Iraqi Women's Union, who is also a candidate, told IRIN. Under voting rules written by US-led administrators, more than 30 percent of the candidates on voter lists must be women.

"People are responding to us and they're eager to participate, except for some Baathists who had benefits from the former regime," Kihani said.

But extending voting only makes the chance of corruption greater, Andrew Renshaw, a British logistics adviser on Iraqi reconstruction efforts, told IRIN. Voters will have their fingers sprayed with indelible ink visible only under a special light to keep them from voting twice, according to Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission (IEC).

The ink wears off after a day or two, however. More days of voting also give insurgents more of a chance to figure out how to attack the voters and officials, he said. Not only that, but unless large areas around polling stations are cordoned off, not just the stations themselves, voters will be intimidated, whether the poll lasts a day or a year, Renshaw said.

"There has to be a saturation of soldiers and police all around or else insurgents will drive car bombs at them and mortar them. A huge area around the polls needs to be sanitised so people can go and vote freely and not be intimidated," Renshaw said.

Three days of voting is better than 15 days, Shaffah Majid, told IRIN, as she waited for her friend at a beauty salon. "The longer the voting goes, the more polling stations will be attacked," Majid said.

"We are talking about it in my neighbourhood and worrying about the actual day it happens."

BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE LACKING

Families displaced by fighting, especially from cities such as Fallujah, some 60 km from Baghdad and Mosul in the north, are bitter that they're not even being considered as the vote goes forward.

"Let Mr Allawi come here and see how we are living, without any running water or heat," Nasser Mehssen, from Fallujah, told IRIN. Mehssen is now living in a tent with his family of eight on a small out-of-the-way plot of land at Baghdad University. "He should help us, not accuse us of being terrorists."

Children play outside the tents in the fading sun as their fathers line up for blankets being distributed by a nearby mosque. A sheikh asked that the exact site not be named for security reasons. Almost 1,000 people are living in the small area now, he said.

"I am not a politician, but we are discussing what we should do here. We live between the Americans and the face of al-Zarqawi," the sheikh told IRIN, declining to be named. The Jordan-based terrorist rumoured to have formerly been holed up in Fallujah is now said to be in Baghdad.

"We can't go home now, because Americans told us we will be killed or captured if we are between the ages of 15 and 50."

US forces are putting a complicated identification system in place that will scan fingerprints and or the eyes of each person entering or leaving Fallujah. Allawi said some people would return home before Sunday, but none of the families at the university had heard more information.

"We don't know when it will be safe to return. Of course we'll vote if we can, but we weren't told anything," Zainab Jassem, told IRIN. "We know Allawi said something. But we don't have any TV or radio here, since there is no electricity."

Voter registration is being carried out through Iraq's food-ration card system in which families receive food monthly from the government. If a family left by November the place where they received their food ration, they didn't receive registration information being used to create voter rolls.

Violence has kept voter registration on hold in the "triangle of death", a Sunni region of three provinces north and west of capital Baghdad, said US Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte.

KEEPING THE PEACE

In addition, an increasing number of people across the country are asking whether civil war is imminent. Ethnic and religious factions are increasingly polarised by fighting and terrorist attacks, some observers say.

"We're afraid of civil war. I get a headache just thinking about it," Jamal al-Karbuli, secretary-general of the Iraqi Red Crescent, told IRIN.

As many as 90 percent of the Iraqi National Guard forces now working alongside US-led forces in Fallujah are Kurdish people from the north, which is expected to cause tensions between Sunni Muslims and Kurds, al-Karbuli said.

Many Iraqi forces in Fallujah are Kurds, but many others are Shi'ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, among others, said a Ministry of Defence official on condition of anonymity. "Maybe it should be people chosen from the same area to work as the national guard in an area," al-Karbuli said. "In the Red Crescent, we are all equal - we don't talk about Shia or Sunni, but there has to be a balance."

If a vote comes off, it appears government leaders will face the huge task of getting it accepted by Iraqis across the country. Several Sunni Muslim parties are boycotting the polls and broad swathes of voters have not been able to confirm their registration.

Some Sunni parties, including one led by well-known leader Adnan Pachachi, came into the process at the last minute.

An air of uncertainty now hangs over the country, fuelled by power outages that leave the average Baghdad family with about four hours of electricity per day and petrol shortages that have cut the capital's horrendous traffic jams.

Most children are still going to school, but insurgents mount daily attacks on police and other Iraqi forces. Suicide car bombs and mortar attacks are so common in the capital, people barely flinch when they hear explosions.

Regardless, election officials continue their work - checking lists to make sure candidates are over 30 years old and a third of candidates on each list are female. They also check to make sure any militia members, ex-Baath party leaders and current army officials are not represented on the party lists.

It's unclear exactly how big an influence security fears could have on the elections. In southern Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani is encouraging people to vote. Sunni Muslims don't care what their religious leaders want them to do, however, said al-Karbuli.

"There should be security for people first, so they should put the election date off. We also need reconciliation between Iraqis first. That will bring security," Mohammed al-Ensari, a Sunni Muslim working on election issues with the Independent Electoral Commission, told IRIN.

FEMALE CANDIDATES

Female candidates are expected to bring a calming influence to the campaign, Hanaa Edward, who will run on the al-Waten (My Country) independent party list, told IRIN. Edward also heads Iraq's al-Amal aid agency in Baghdad.

"A woman is a life donor as a mother, so she will work with her brain and heart to build a good and safe life for her family and for all Iraqi people," Edward said. "As an Iraqi woman, I think we will be successful in the political life as we are in our usual life."

Other women are nominated as independents, candidates who are running outside of the party list system. In general women are pushing peace, safety and cooperation, several told IRIN. Many are courting the female vote, since women make up an estimated 60 percent of Iraq's population, following decades of war and the killing of male soldiers.

"I will work hard to win women's support in the election," Salwa Awadi, a nominated independent candidate, told IRIN. "I trust their wisdom. I'm sure they will choose the best candidates.

Women today are also getting advice and training from the United Nations Development Fund for Women, or UNIFEM. The UN agency is letting women know they are important both as voters and candidates, Bassma al-Kateeb, a UNIFEM spokeswoman, told IRIN.

"It's important they use their voice in the right way to determine their choices," al-Kateeb said. Almost 100 women were trained in Jordan to work with women inside Iraq, al-Kateeb said.

That training was done with the help of the Minister of State for Women, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Education, al-Kateeb said.

Officials from the Iraqi Centre for Women's Rehabilitation and Employment and the Iraq Women's Network also were involved in the training, al-Kateeb said.

They will spread the word to other women across the country to get involved in the voting process, the director of the women's rehabilitation and employment agency told IRIN, declining to give her name for security reasons.

"My training courses for women will be about how we run the election campaign, who is nominated, how they can win voters and how to register," the woman said.

Women leaders across Iraq pushed for the 25 percent representation when US officials started organising election rules months ago, several candidates said. Many said they want to change Iraq's traditional system of male governance.
Source
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 12:41 pm
yeah, I bet we do. I'd say it was the Bushco in alignment with the gutless house/senate.(execpt for the one actual conservative-Ron Paul of Texas).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:35 am
Re: THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0
So this is the current Iraq thread (I hope)?

This is a reply to a post from the first thread (Link)


Tantor wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Besides, I'm not sure how dependable a nuke would be without any tests. c.i.


Of the two types of nukes we dropped on Japan, one was considered so simple that it did not require a test detonation. The other one required a test out at Trinity.

I think it was the Fat Man bomb that required testing and the Little Boy did not. As I recall one bomb was detonated shotgun style by shooting the two halves of uranium together to achieve critical mass. That was simple.


It was more like firing 1/3 into 2/3.



Tantor wrote:
The other method of achieving critical mass was by surrounding the two halves of the uranium sphere with shaped explosive charges, all of which had to detonate within nanoseconds of each other to detonate the weapon. That was considered tricky enough to require testing.

Tantor


The sphere was not in halves. The explosives compressed a "whole" sphere. Also, the first implosion bombs used plutonium.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 08:26 am
Quote:
Iraqi insurgents now outnumber coalition forces

By James Hider
The head of intelligence services in Baghdad says that there are more than 200,000 fighters

IRAQ'S rapidly swelling insurgency numbers 200,000 fighters and active supporters and outnumbers the United States-led coalition forces, the head of the country's intelligence service said yesterday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1425022,00.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 10:56 am
Tantor, Looks like you killed two birds with one stone. LOL You're right, ofcoarse!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:46 am
200k insurgents? Jesus. Let's get more on this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:11 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Tantor, Looks like you killed two birds with one stone. LOL You're right, ofcoarse!


Were you confusing me (oralloy) with Tantor, or saying that he was right?

Regardless, Tantor made a serious error in his description of how an implosion bomb works.


I was going to do his H-bomb post too, but then discovered I was posting on a locked thread (except my post went through). I figured I should put the post I already made in the correct board, but that there was probably no point in replying to the other one across the span of seven boards.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 06:40 pm
More violence in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4148329.stm
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 07:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
200k insurgents? Jesus. Let's get more on this.
Cycloptichorn

Let's suppose there actually are 200,000 insurgents who are eligible voters. And further suppose there are on the average 35 people per insurgent, who are also eligible voters and who, while not willing to risk death in combat, are nevertheless supporters of these insurgents and also do not want elections to take place. That would bring the total against elections to 7,000,000. Also suppose half the Iraqi population, or about 13,000,000, are eligible voters. Then in this case more than half of the Iraqi eligible voters would be against elections.

All those supposes could be easily tested. Add a proposition to be voted on at the 1/30/05 election: "We approve holding these elections." If a majority disapprove these elections, they can express that opinion without killing any more Iraqis by voting against the proposition.

What do you think?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 07:48 pm
Insurgents vote by bullets and bombs...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 07:52 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4150429.stm
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 08:11 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Insurgents vote by bullets and bombs...
Yes, presumably all 200,000 do. But at least that part of the populace that doesn't "vote by bullets and bombs" could decide whether or not they approve the elections. If a majority doesn't approve them, then the election results would be cancelled without having to kill any one to accomplish that.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 08:21 pm
so, if there is an election of some kind the insurgency will cease..... yahuh.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 08:38 pm
WTF goes on here?

Quote:

Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
1. Mysterious US strike in Irbil Condemned by Kurds ...
Mysterious US strike in Irbil Condemned by Kurds

The US military appears to have become convinced that Ansar al-Sunnah, a breakaway group from the largely Kurdish terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, has been operating from dormitories at the Salahuddin University in the Kurdish stronghold of Irbil. US special forces accompanied by Kurdish fighters and helicopter gunships struck at the dormitory on Wednesday evening. There are rumors that the US captured a senior Ansar al-Islam leader. Seven persons were injured in the attack, and a number were captured.

The odd thing is that Irbil is under the control of Masoud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party, a close ally of the United States. If the US wanted something done in Irbil, why wouldn't it just ask Barzani's peshmerga or paramilitary to do it? Had Ansar al-Islam terrified or bribed local Irbil officials into ignoring the AI cell in the city?

Some reports say the US was accompanied by Kurdish commandoes. But they weren't local peshmerga from Irbil.

Kurdistan Interior Minister Kerim Sinjari condemned the operation. Al-Zaman says he complained that several innocent civilians were killed by US forces in the course of it, including one woman. He said that such actions could jeopardize Kurdistan-US relations.

US news outlets continually blame Saddam for Ansar al-Islam, consisting of a few hundred Kurdish guerrillas, some of whom had fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In fact, however, they operated from the de facto no-fly zone that was under US control, not that of Saddam.

South Korea's troops are stationed in the north, which may have contributed to the urgency of the US operation.

In my view, the threat of a serious conflict between the Kurdish paramilitary and the US is imminent. Once a new government is elected, if it can be, it may take decisions that the Kurds don't like. The US will then have a choice of supporting the Kurds or the government it itself had formed.
Wed, Jan 5, 2005 20:17
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 08:57 pm
Quote, "In my view, the threat of a serious conflict between the Kurdish paramilitary and the US is imminent. Once a new government is elected, if it can be, it may take decisions that the Kurds don't like. The US will then have a choice of supporting the Kurds or the government it itself had formed.
Wed, Jan 5, 2005 20:17"

You can bet your bottom dollar more ironies are forthcoming from this election on January 30.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 09:17 pm
Another important news.
********************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4150391.stm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 10:51 pm
NYTimes.com > Washington

Newly Released Reports Show Early Concern on Prison Abuse
By KATE ZERNIKE

Published: January 6, 2005


In late 2002, more than a year before a whistle-blower slipped military investigators the graphic photographs that would set off the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, an F.B.I. agent at the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, sent a colleague an e-mail message complaining about the military's "coercive tactics" with detainees, documents released yesterday show.

"You won't believe it!" the agent wrote.

Two years later, the frustration among F.B.I. agents had grown. Another agent sent a colleague an e-mail message saying he had seen reports that a general from Guantánamo had gone to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmo-ize" it. "If this refers to intell gathering as I suspect," he wrote, according to the documents, "it suggests he has continued to support interrogation strategies we not only advised against, but questioned in terms of effectiveness."

When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke last spring, officials characterized the abuse as the aberrant acts of a small group of low-ranking reservists, limited to a few weeks in late 2003. But thousands of pages in military reports and documents released under the Freedom of Information Act to the American Civil Liberties Union in the past few months have demonstrated that the abuse involved multiple service branches in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba, beginning in 2002 and continuing after Congress and the military had begun investigating Abu Ghraib.

Yesterday, in response to some of the documents, the Pentagon said it would investigate F.B.I. reports that military interrogators in Guantánamo abused prisoners by beating them, grabbing their genitals and chaining them to the cold ground.

Questions on the handling of detainees will be central to Senate hearings today on the nomination of the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, as attorney general and to the court-martial of the accused leader of the Abu Ghraib abuse, which begins Friday in Texas.

An article in today's issue of The New England Journal of Medicine says that military medical personnel violated the Geneva Conventions by helping design coercive interrogation techniques based on detainee medical information. Some doctors told the journal that the military had instructed them not to discuss the deaths that occurred in detention.

No one predicted the acts that showed up in snapshots from Abu Ghraib - naked detainees piled in a pyramid or leashed and crawling - but the documents showed many warnings of mistreatment, most explicitly from the F.B.I.

"Basically, it appears that the lawyer worked hard to write a legal justification for the type of interviews they (the Army) want to conduct here," one agent said in an e-mail message from Guantánamo in December 2002.

The Pentagon now says 137 military members have been disciplined or face courts-martial for abusing detainees. A separate federal investigation in Virginia is looking into possible abuses by civilians hired as interrogators. Several military investigations are still pending, including ones into the deaths of about a dozen detainees.

The charges against the 137 service members, officials say, reflect a zero-tolerance attitude toward abuse - and a small percentage of the 167,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Our policy is clear," said Lt. Col. John A. Skinner, a Pentagon spokesman. "It has always been the humane treatment of detainees."

Civil liberties groups complain that no high-level officers have been held accountable for abuse.

"When you see the same thing happening in three different places, you see abuses being committed with impunity, then it ceases to be the sole responsibility of the individual soldiers," Reed Brody, special counsel to Human Rights Watch, said. "At a certain point, it becomes so widespread that it makes it look like a policy."

Colonel Skinner said that while Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said he believes the abuse was limited, "the secretary has also been clear that we're going to have multiple lines of inquiry to really fully understand what took place, and to have the appropriate investigations to find out any wrongdoing that's occurred." Three of eight military reports on the abuse, he said, have yet to be concluded.

An Army officer, Brig. Gen. John T. Furlow, will lead the new investigation at Guantánamo.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 10:54 pm
Army Gen. John T. Furlow will find nothing to implicate the higher ups in command. That's a given.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:18 pm
Okay, so you'd rather not address the leaps of logic you've made in your speculations, and wave it off as not worthy of debate. Understood, ican.

How do you think Saddam could have used his substantial force of men under arms that exceeded the US force that invaded Iraq to remove Ansar al Islam from Northern Iraq if he was barred from movement there by the Joint Task Force's Operation Northern Watch?

Talking about exercises in futility, air strikes against the Ansar al-Islam camps in 2002, which the US military had proposed to the US administration then, would have been at least as effective and much more cost effective than an all out invasion of the entire country of Iraq for the sake of removing a single camp in the isolated region of Iraq's northern mountain region.

In June of 2002 the Pentagon had presented the Bush admin. detailed plans for a military strike on the northeastern Iraqi camp which Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was allegedly running. The Bush Admin. declined this action in favor of the larger invasion and occupation of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 03:04 am
MY GUESS:

This will be remembered by history as the biggest screw-up any American president has ever made.

For sure it looks as though we won't even need history to judge it as one of the most counterproductive undertakings in modern times.

If it weren't so sad...it would be laughable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.3 seconds on 08/21/2025 at 03:53:20