Elections won't stem violence in Iraq, analysts say

[leftchick]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/10737805.htm

~snip~

The main problem linked to the election, analysts say, is that many if not most Sunnis - who constitute up to 37 percent of Iraq's population - are refusing to participate either as voters or candidates. They cite threats from insurgents or say they do not believe fair elections can be held while Iraq is under foreign military occupation.

Experts on Iraq say the results are likely to be heavily skewed toward the groups that are participating: the Shiite Muslim population concentrated in southern Iraq, comprising 60 percent of the population, and the ethnic Kurd population in the north, which is mainly Sunni but does not share the Arab Sunni sense of disaffection with the electoral process.

The Transitional Assembly "will be working on a new constitution, and the Sunnis will not have a say in this because they will not be part of the parliamentary authority," said Rime Allaf, an associate fellow in Arab studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.

In spite of pledges by top Shiite leaders to guarantee Sunni positions within the new government and legislature, analysts say the Sunni-Shiite split is only likely to widen because of the Arab Sunnis' non-participation.

[MSgt213]

1. Of course it will get worse. Please tell me my fellow idiot Americans

don't understand yet that when Bush says it's going to be one way you can bank on it being the opposite.

[Selatius]

2. It seems Iraq is on the verge of balkanization

Iraq will probably have to be broken up into several pieces in the long-run if these groups do not wish to live with each other in peace.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Huh??? It has NOTHING to do with Iraqis "not wish to live with each other

in peace".

THEY DON'T LIKE BEING INVADED, OCCUPIED, AND KILLED.

Gee. How WEIRD of them.

[Selatius]

5. Well, that was obvious

But it's still beside the point of the consequences of the Jan. 30 elections. What could easily happen regardless of the issues surrounding invasion is that the Shi'ites will win, and the Sunnis will automatically reject the government, which would do nothing but help to splinter Iraq.

[dutchdoctor]

6. unfortunately it does..

After having all the power for 20 years the Sunni minority are just going to let go that easily..
Remember that no attacks against occupying forces are being carried out in the Kurdish north of Iraq, and most attacks in the Shiite south are carried out by Sunni's. Actually, since a few months, most attacks have been against the (mostly Shiite and Kurd) Iraqi national force, not the occupiers.
Notably the Kurds, being ethnically and culturally different, have been pursuing their own state for quite some time and are actively cooperating with the U.S. to further their interests

This doesn't mean of course that Bush has not been a miserable failure, many predicted this would happen and he should have anticipated better, because when (not if) the country does fall apart it will have a disastrous effect on the stability of the region.

[LynnTheDem]

7. Unfortunately you're WRONG. According to the IRAQIS anyways.

But hey, wtf would they know abiout it. :D

There has NEVER been war between Sunni and Shia. Iraq is TRIBAL and BOTH Sunni & Shia belong to many of the SAME tribes.

The top 6 largest organizations in Iraq are SHIA AND SUNNI members.

The SHIA have ALREADY waged 3 major uprisings against US forces in Iraq and are again fighting in Basra.

Sadr City, Baghdad is a total war zone...the fighters are SHIA.

The insurgency is NOT between Sunni & Shia; it's betten IRAQIS and the invaders.

But it just doesn't seem to matter HOW many times the IRAQIS THEMSELVES say the Sunni-Shia divide is bullshit, it doesn't matter HOW many times real actual ME experts say it; Americans are gonna keep on insisting it's Sunni vs Shia.

It isn't.

And as for the bushCartel bullshit faslse dichotomy of pointing out how there's LESS FIGHTING down south, which is majority Shia area, and MORE FIGHTING in the majority Sunni area...WELL DUHHHH maybe because BAGHDAD (Iraq's largest city) and the MAJORITY OF THE US TROOPS are there.

[dutchdoctor]

11. Alright alright, no need to SHOUT!

Never been a war between Sunni and Shia? How about the Shia uprising against Saddam and his Sunni dominated army right after gulf war one that killed more than 100,000 Shiites? Or the battle against the Kurdish people in which Saddam DID use mustard gas (I know all the other WMD claims were BS, but this one was actually true). Or Saddams Arabification policies of the oil rich city of Mosul?
The 3 major uprisings against US forces you are referring to? I assume you are talking about Moqtada Al-Sadrs force fighting the US troops? I am sure you know that his army is not representative for the majority of Shiites and his armed uprising was moslty seen as way to gain more prominence among the young shiites who were disappointed with the amount of progress being made. The highest ranking and most popular Shiite cleric is still Ayatollah Al-Sistani who has never condemned the occupation, cooperates with the US and urges his followers to vote..

Listen, I was against this invasion from the start and I have been saying for months that Bush is lying about the situation. But it is a fact that there are different ethnic groups with different interests in Iraq. Not aknowledging this will only make it harder to find a non violent solution.

About your false dichotomy: I think that there is a disproportionate amount of violence in all Sunni areas. Can you point to any instance of violence in the Kurdish north (north of mosul)? Another fact is that in recent months more Iraqis have been targeted and killed than occupation forces. Don't have a link for that one, but I am sure you have read this too?

PS: I don't swallow any of the bushie koolaide thank you, I hardly see any US media since I live in the Netherlands..

[LynnTheDem]

12. Nope, never been a war between Sunni & Shia and that's a fact.

The uprisings where IRAQIS against Saddam Hussein. Shia AND Sunni. And Kurds.

"The rebels slaughtered thousands of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds; some by execution, by slitting throats, by hanging, by shooting...

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

"It was a revolution," says one Basrawi rebel named Mohamad, who deserted his army unit after the intifada began and eventually made it to the United States. "It was glorious. There were demonstrations and shooting. There were bodies all over the place."

Hussein's Republican Guard were Sunni AND Shia; one of his top Generals was a Shia. Shia and Sunni and Kurds were slaughtered by the rebels (Sunni, Shia and Kurds)...and then by the government forces (Sunni, Shia).

The Kurds are aligned with IRAN, they have ALWAYS been aligned with Iran and are a total 'nother kettle of fish.

We're talking Sunni and Shia here.

No I'm not talking about Sadr's uprisings. There have been 3 major Shia uprisings. AND Sadr's.

Al Sistani; look a bit closer at what he's actually said & done. He's a cunning one.

I will AGAIN say the same thing the IRAQIS say; there is NO Sunni-Shia war going on, there has NEVER been a war between the Sunni & the Shia, and there are TRIBAL rivalries going on that have always been going on, but it is not Sunni versus Shia; that is bushCartel rightwingnut bullshit.

As for Iraqis being targetted, OF COURSE they are; ANYONE COLLABORATING with the occupiers is a target.

Actually I must admit the US Military, which I've been lumping in with the "bushCartel rightwingnut" group, or the top brass, anyways, HAS conceded the FACT that it is not Sunni versus Shia, that it is a NATIONALISTIC insurgency. But the US StenoMedia carries on ignoring what they say.

Want links?

[dutchdoctor]

14. We agree on some things, disagree on others..

At least you agree with me that the Kurds "are a total 'nother kettle of fish" Your first reply was to someone warning against the balkanisation of Iraq saying that this is not the case I felt the need to reply because I see this as a very real risk.

About the question of whether there has ever been a Shia-Sunni war, I must admit I don't know enough about the matter.. I have always thought that the 1991 uprising was mainly Shia but I could be wrong..
That doesn't mean there could never be one though, especially with tensions running up so high.
Let's see what Al-Zarqawi has to say about it:
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4199363.stm">BBCnews.com

"The speaker reserved particular scorn for Iraq's Shia majority, whose parties are widely expected to win next Sunday's election.

The Shia, it said, were poised to spread "their insidious beliefs" to Baghdad and Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq."

"A message attributed to Zarqawi earlier this week accused the Shia of taking part in the US assault on the Sunni Muslim city of Falluja and described their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, as "Satan".

I agree that Al Sistani is a cunning man, that's why I only claim he didn't condemn the occupation instead of "endorse"

peace, and that your troops may return home not long after the dutch troops (march 15th)

edited to fix the link

[LynnTheDem]

17. That's the interesting thing about Life. :)

Palestinian al Zarqawi has no credibility on Iraqi matters, imo.

There's always a first time for everything, so yep there could be a civil war between Sunni & Shia, exactly like our own civil war, because Sunni & Shia marry each other, so they'd be fighting father against son etc.

But that's THEIR right and THEIR business, not ours.

Had the French stuck around after our booting Brit arse out, we'd simply have turned on the French after we got rid of the Brits.

Had any nation butted in to break up the fight during our own civil war, again we'd have all turned on them and then continued our civil war.

Sadly, that's the way the world works, always has & always will.

So if for the first time in their history a civil war breaks out between Sunni and Shia, it's just simply not our business nor our right to interefere, just as we not have countenanced ANYONE interfering with ours. Unfortunately many people (esp we Americans, it seems) have a heavy dose of that "white man's burden" thing, where we see ourselves as the benign kindly and very superior parent to the inferior.

Funny thing is, the recipients of our fatherliness don't appreciate it much. *sarcasm*

I'm glad we have common & uncommon ground. :) Forgive my bad mood responses;, we've several friends still Iraqmired & their division's taking a lot of caasualties right now. Waiting to hear names tends to make me one mean individual.

[0007]

13. Perhaps one can say the same thing about the U.S.?

And where do we win the right to make such a decision or even suggest that this is the answer? I'll tell you where? This idea is preferred because it is safe and it don't threaten established wealth or power.

Bring the troops home and give the Iraqi your tax dollar to help build his country.

[leesa]

15. Heeellllooooo WE invaded them! They aren't in peace because we

are terrorizing them. Who the hell are you to talk about breaking them up, Mr Colonialist??

[Selatius]

23. I'm not a colonialist because I don't wish to hold Iraq

However, if the elections are held and the Shi'ites win, the Sunnis could be outraged. There could be a fight, and since we bought it when we broke it, the least we could do is try to keep the level of violence down to a low roar, and if that means giving the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds their own separate country to be happy, then I say give it to them. Once that's done, we get the hell out of there.

[LynnTheDem]

3. Well gee, no DUHHHH. Since elections have NOTHING to do with

the insurgency.

-The fake Saddam statue toppling did nothing

-The gunning down of Hussein's sons did nothing

-The capture of Saddam Hussein did nothing

-The fake handover of sovereignty did nothing

-The fraudulant fake election will do nothing.

Because it's the INVASION, OCCUPATION, AND KILLING 100,000 civilians, STUPID!

[Rockerdem]

16. Why are you arguing against the obvious Sunni/Shia split?

It makes one look stupid, Im sorry to inform. The Shiites are going to turn out in droves, and the Sunnis are going to stay at home. (I assume that the Kurds are going to turn out too.)

There is a sectarian battle going on. Sunni bombers are intentionally targeting Shia clerics in order to incite the civil war that they desire. They are doing so in order to inculcate solidarity with and support from the rest of the Sunni nations. Theyre outnumbers as it is in Iraq, afraid of whats coming, and desperate for more outside help from their sectarian buds.

Unfortunately for them, the Shiites aren't cooperating. They seem to be in complicity with the coalition, biding their time and waiting for the elections that will give them the power to deal with the Sunnis on their own terms.

[LynnTheDem]

18. Speaking of stupid... No there is not a sectarian battle going on

Unless you fall for the rightwingnut bushit, that is. WHO is saying there is a Sunni-Shia divide??? BUSH. CARTEL. MSM.

The Sunni & Shia have continuously said BULLSHIT.

Their entire history is on the Sunni-Shia side; they have NEVER been divided against each other & they have NEVER warred against each other. There have been skirmishes in Iraq, yes...but TRIBAL ones, and Sunni & Shia are NOT tribes; they belong to many of the SAME tribes.

There is a NATIONALSTIC BATTLE going on between the IRAQIS and the OCCUPIERS.

And THINK about it with some logic for a min; if SHIA are 60% majority to a 20% SUNNI, and the polls are showing 56% of Shia AND Sunni think attacks on troops are justified, that means MORE THAN TWICE the number of SHIA in absolute numbers believe it's justified attacking US troops.

Please provide 1 single bit of proof that "Sunni bombers are intentionally targetting Shia clerics in order to incite civil war", and AGAIN USE LOGIC for one second...WHY THE F*CK would a 20% MINORITY INCITE A WAR AGAINST A 60% MAJORITY???

Never even mind that there is no proof of any such "incitement" crap going on, and that in fact Shia & Sunni both deny it, and that in fact MORE SHIA oppose the occupiers than Sunnis do and that in fact Sunnis and Shia are not separate tribes; they belong to many of the same tribes, they marry each other, they've lived together without ever having a civil war, which would pit father vs son...and that Sunnis would have to be DUMBER THAN BUSH to want to start a war at 20% to 60%.

YES the BUSHCARTEL are stupid enough to think their illogical BULLSHIT they spew will convince Americans, and YES most rightwingnuts are stupid enough to swallow the bullshit, but WE are NOT. Correct?

[Rockerdem]

19. Calm down and read Reuters

Youre in major denial. There have been many car bombs that have targeted Shiite clerics from the beginning.

The Sunnis can see the tables being turned. They see that they are outnumbered. Theyre frightened about Shiite domination in their lives. Their only hope is to receive outside assistance from other Sunnis living in the rest of the Arab world.

If there was the solidarity that you foolishly claim, the Shiites would have joined Sadr in his push to oust the outsiders. Instead they slapped him down. If your reasoning had any connection to reality, the Shiite would have shut the country long ago, and made American movement impossible instead of just dangerous.

You need to reassess your position.

[LynnTheDem]

22. 1. DO NOT USE that bullshit rhetoric on me.

DO NOT tell me to "calm down". That is VERY OFFENSIVE, bloody RUDE, and a total rightwing tactic so KNOCK IT OFF.

2. YOU are the one in DENIAL dear. Or are the IRAQIS ALSO in denial???

You have a total lack of LOGICAL ability. The Sunni are FRIGHTENED about Shia domination SO AT 20% of a MINORITY they're trying to INCITE A WAR AGAINST the 60% SHIA????

They'd HAVE to be so much STUPIDER THAN BUSH that would make them THE STUPIDEST MFers on the planet.

3. What did I say in my post??? MAINSTREAM MEDIA. THEY are the ones passing on the "Sunni trying to incite war Sunni-Shia divide" bullshit. And so then you tell me to read REUTERS.

4. Before you carry on calling ME foolish, you may want to STFU and RESEARCH, because you are VERY much MISTAKEN.

YOU need to reassess YOUR position and think about moving into FACTS.

Want LINKS to said FACTS? Want LINKS to what the Sunni & Shia have to say about the BULLSHIT spewed about "inciting civil war" and "Sunni-Shia" divide?

All you have to do is ASK. Or you can remain totally ignorant of the FACTS.

[Selatius]

24. I think you hurt yourself when you use ALL CAPS

That is considered rude and yelling. If you wish to build an argument, then it would help if you would not yell at your listener.

[Massachusetts]

8. Frontline last night summed it up pretty well.

To bad its not shown on the "clap trap" channels so the masses could be better informed....but then again...

[ixion]

9. this article gets the big 'DUH' award

for stating the blatantly obvious.

Gee, maybe I shold become an analyst. I could have told them that. :eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. We just need a window of opportunity to get the hell out of Bush's

Quagmire.

[Rockerdem]

21. You got that right

About 98% of the posters on our site can see a Bush-induced calamity on the horizon. Civil war is about to break out, and AWOL has no power to stop it. Our troops are caught in the middle and will have to fight to get out if we try to stay.

Thats why I think that, behind the scenes, Bushco has made a deal with the Shiites. For a few months, they will allow us to leave under the fig-leaf of "peace with honor". And then they can do whatever they want with the logistical help that we likely have promised to seal the deal. After that, the long knives come out.

[Skittles]

20. GEE, YA *THINK* ????????????????????????????

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA