Time tables

[fatman]

It could just be politics, or posturing as BT has said.  A large majority of Iraqi's (something like 70% IIRC) want the Americans out, and what better way for Maliki to strengthen his power than to acquiese to those demands, whether they're ready for American withdrawal or not?

On the flip side, it is their country to do with as they see fit.  They do have a democratic government.  For the US to ignore their wishes or demands and refuse to exit would have a hugely negative impact on American prestige.  It would make us appear to be neoimperialists.

I think that Bush and whoever the next President will be will try to maintain a large force in Iraq.  The only question in my mind is whether or not the Iraqi's or their government will allow it.

[Michael Tee]

The assumptions that seem to be taken for granted in this discussion are mind-boggling.  First, that Iraq is a democracy with a democratically elected government.

Iraq is NOT a democracy.  It does not even have a legitimate constitution agreed to by a simple majority of its citizens, so it's not a democracy or a dictatorship or anything in between - - it is land occupied by the U.S. Army and its allied forces.  Whatever Maliki and his fellow collaborators want to call themselves, and whatever posturing they now wish to strike (demanding the U.S. leave without doing a single God-damn thing to force them out, for example) they are NOT a government but a most a faction.

Another assumption - - that the U.S. forces are there to assure "stability" and "democracy" before leaving is similarly absurd.  The U.S. has never supported real democracy in the region - - not for the West Bank, not for Gaza, not for Egypt, not for Jordan, not for Kuwait or any of the UAE states, and the list goes on.  Why only in Iraq would the U.S. suddenly become so vitally interested in "democracy?"

The real question that is being debated is, "When will the U.S. find a bunch of puppets to govern their oppressed people the way WE want them to be governed?" and the answer to THAT question is, "Never."

[Amianthus]

Iraq is NOT a democracy.  It does not even have a legitimate constitution agreed to by a simple majority of its citizens, so it's not a democracy or a dictatorship or anything in between - - it is land occupied by the U.S. Army and its allied forces.

The current Iraq Constitution was approved on October 15th, 2005. 78% of the voters voted "yes." That's not just a simple majority, it's a super majority in more ways than one (2/3 or 3/4).

[sirs]

But.....but.....Ami, they were coerced, if not forced to vote, at gunpoint no less.  Kinda the opposite of what happened in Florida 2000

[Michael Tee]

<<The current Iraq Constitution was approved on October 15th, 2005. 78% of the voters voted "yes." That's not just a simple majority, it's a super majority in more ways than one (2/3 or 3/4).>>

A vote under the guns of an occupying army?  right.  If that's not legitimate, what is?  Most Iraqis did not vote and of those who did, which of them voted in the fraudulent "election" only because they did not want to wind up on anyone's shit list?  Not while the torture chambers were still running full blast.  Furthermore, ex-Ba'ath members were prohibited from campaigning, not that they would have been stupid enough to have done so.   Funny how the former members of the only legitimate government couldn't even offer themselves to the people as candidates in this "democratic" election, isn't it?

The vote was illegitimate, the Constitution is illegitimate and the government "elected" to serve under it is illegitimate.  Moreover, if it had ANY popular legitimacy it could organize its own army and security force and would not need the presence of 140,000 American troops to protect its sorry collective ass.  They will all be dead in a matter of weeks if their American protectors and sponsors ever leave the country.   Not that there's any chance of that happening at present.  It is, however, an inevitable event.  They are marked men.

[Plane]

If 78% voted for did 22% vote against?

What happened to that 22% and the 20% or so that did not vote?

Massive round up ?


Hardly , there was a lot of celebration at the most legitimate election the Iriquis had ever seen , it can get better , but it is already very good.

[Amianthus]

Most Iraqis did not vote and of those who did, which of them voted in the fraudulent "election" only because they did not want to wind up on anyone's shit list?

The voter turnout was 63%.

The UN certified the election.

[Michael Tee]

plane:  <<If 78% voted for did 22% vote against?

<<What happened to that 22% and the 20% or so that did not vote?

<<Massive round up ?>>
=========================================
We don't know what really happened to a lot of people in Iraq.  A lot of people died in so-called "sectarian violence" where we don't know who got on who's shit-list or how they got there.  It's conceivable to me that if some local sheikh had a deal with the Americans to turn out "his" people to vote in their fake election and some duuude failed to show up and vote, that in itself would be an excellent way in itself to get oneself inscribed forever in somebody's Book of Shit.  With consequences one can well imagine.   I would expect that many of those who DID participate in the fraud were very well cognizant of the unpleasant realities of life in Occupied Iraq and conducted themselves prudently and responsibly, meaning that they voted if they were told to vote and they voted HOW they were told to vote.

Since many of the bodies of the victims of "sectarian violence" did show "evidence of torture," I would say they very likely were "rounded up" prior to their execution, so "massive roundup" may be pretty close to the mark.  Although "massive" probably isn't appropriate, since I can't imagine too many of them being stupid enough NOT to vote in the Americans' massively publicized "elections."

Ami:   <<The voter turnout was 63%.>>

OK that makes 37 out of every 100 Iraqis who did NOT vote for the constitution.
Of the 63 who DID vote, 22% (plane's figures) or 14 voters did not vote for the constitution.

Total of each 100 Iraqis NOT supporting the constitution or the vote for the constitution = 37 + 14 = 51 voters or 51%.  Considering that this "election" is held under foreign military occupation, this renders even the 49% pro-constitutional vote suspect.  The "election" is, as I said it was, a total crock.

<<The UN certified the election.>>

I am so very impressed.  This means any large country can invade a small country, occupy it, and hold valid elections there.  Wow, that's good news, but even better news is that the right-wing fruitbats of the country are finally showing a new respect for the UN and its opinions, thus heralding a renaissance of the rule of law in international relations.  Wonderful news.



The UN certified the election.

[BT]

The Sunni's decided not to vote in the election, if memory serves.

Their choice in a democracy.

[Michael Tee]

<<The Sunni's decided not to vote in the election, if memory serves.

<<Their choice in a democracy. >>

Yeah, or it WOULD have been their choice if it HAD been a democracy.  As it happened, it was a military occupation, not a "democracy" and they chose not to participate in the occupier's fraudulent little game.  Meaning they did not wish to play by American-made rules in their own country, and did not thereby lend any legitimacy to the Americans' fraud.  Nor did the 22% of the "67%" who DID vote.  Which, as it happens, makes the "elections" not merely a fraud, but a very obvious fraud.

[BT]

They were invited to participate. Sunni's in mixed neighborhoods voted. Those in the ghettos didn't out of fear and not of the occupiers nor the majority.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the Iraqi government represents the Iraqi people, and that same government wants a timetable, then how can the US refuse to present a timetable?

The US cannot reasonably invade, then refuse to leave when they are no longer wanted and claim that it is for the good of the Iraqis.

It is up to the Iraqis to decide what is best for them. There was no plebiscite of Iraqis favoring the invasion and the overthrow of Saddam, after all.

The WMDs that were supposed to justify this foolish adventure turn out to have never been a threat, and certainly are not a threat today.

[BT]

If the Iraqi government represents the Iraqi people, and that same government wants a timetable, then how can the US refuse to present a timetable?

When the Iraqi govt officially asks us to leave, we'll talk about it. They haven't.

[Plane]

If the Iraqi government represents the Iraqi people, and that same government wants a timetable, then how can the US refuse to present a timetable?

I don't think we can refuse.

What is the demand specificly?

If we start to go would they change their mind and call us back?

[Michael Tee]

<<Sunni's in mixed neighborhoods voted. Those in the ghettos didn't out of fear and not of the occupiers nor the majority. >>

Exactly.  The Shi'a were in favour of voting and a Sunni in a mixed area was vulnerable to Shi'a threats and retaliation in a way that a Sunni in a Sunni ghetto was not.  It's a no-brainer.  The foreign invaders demand "elections" and the Shi'a majority favours them.  The Sunni don't.  They're both major elements in Iraqi society.  There was no consensus to hold elections and the American solution (one man one vote, winner take all) is an American-made solution imposed at gunpoint on all Iraqis and thus having zero legitimacy.  Even if it HAD the support of 51% of Iraqis, which it apparently did not.  The "elections" are bullshit.  The Iraqis will solve the problem of a government, but they will do it in their own way, not the American way, after the Americans have left or have been driven out.