Association of Muslim Scholars Critical Of Iraq Elections

[Itsthetruth]

AMS critical of Iraq elections
By Lawrence Smallman

Sunday 30 January 2005
20:42 GMT

Iraq's influential Association of Muslim Scholars has told Aljazeera that the low turnout by Sunni Arabs in elections was due to a lack of real choice and military occupation.

In an interview broadcast before polling stations closed on Sunday, Muhammad al-Kubaysi said low turnout in places such as Baghdad, Baquba and Samarra could have been prevented if there had been more time to create a genuine election.

"The voter goes to the polling stations not knowing who he is voting for in the first place. There are more than 7700 candidates, and I challenge any Iraqi voter to name more than half a dozen."

He also criticised the huge number of groups on voting lists in which it was virtually impossible to know who was standing for election and what the candidate's background was.

"Their names have not been announced but have been kept secret ... elections should never have been held under these present circumstances," he said.

"Even 80% of Iraqis living abroad in complete safety refused to register their names . This shows that the low turnout in many areas is not a security problem.

"Rather, it demonstrates a growing Iraqi awareness that these elections are indeed an American and not Iraqi initiative", al-Kubaysi said.

Al-Kubaysi said AMS believed political consensus among Iraqi parties could only be reached once the foreign military presence left the country and all parties had to rely on debate rather than use of force.

"We have consistently argued that elections can only occur in a democracy that enjoys sovereignty. Our sovereignty is incomplete. Our sovereignty is usurped by foreign forces that have occupied our land and hurt our dignity."

Please read the article at:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F1149ACC-43EE-4BA6-AD8A-AC9D62290514.htm

[GetTheRightVote]

1. A stolen America made for Iraqian election

:kick:

[physioex]

2. I tend to agree....

So after these elections, who will be the PM? I haven't seen or heard of any candidates on any news sources. This is all a bunch of crap.

[TahitiNut]

17. This "election" essentially chose a Constitutional Convention.

The primary task of those 275 people 'elected,' as defined by the occupying forces, is to write a new Iraqi Constitution in the coming six months. Until then, there is absolutely no meaning whatsoever to the term "Prime Minister" or anything else.

This is Pig-In-A-Poke-Politics.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

3. it's True- how can you have Democracy under Martial Law?

And Military occupation by foreigners who have a vested interest in financial exploitation of the country's resources.

Like a poster said on another thread earlier-"Democracy is not compatible with the Cro Mag's in Washington"-

Just wait til we have martial law here...with all the bells and whistles--Curfews, sectors, and mass arrests without charges filed--
We're only one "terra" event away from it--all it takes is one more "mini" 911 or better and we will all learn what oppression is really like.

Hope it doesn't happen but what can you expect from a Corporate Tyranny?
Isn't that how Mussolini defined the term "facism"? a merger of corporation with government with a prevalant sense of nationalism? That sounds like "us".

[ScottSA]

4. Bad news

Odd how the western media says one thing and the east says another...in this case almost diametrically opposite. CNN is reporting almost 70% national turnout, and even counting the absence of a substantial Sunni vote, that's a figure any western democracy would be envious of. This is a big boost for the oilwhore.

[M155Y_A1CH]

18. Will we know the true figures?

Let's hope they release the number of people who voted.
We could then compare the current population estimates,
used to arrive at the 70% figure,
to the pre-war population numbers
for a better Iraq Body Count.

[TahitiNut]

19. Manure.

First of all, the "turnout" figures spewed by various media outlets are unsubstantiated guesstimates, obviously spun to distract people - sizzle and no steak.

Most significantly, guesstimated "turnout" of 40%, 60%, or 72% (all over the board) cannot be regarded in anything close to what we call "turnout" in the US or anywhere else that election systems have been in operation for many years. What they're claiming is that 60-70% of Iraqis who recently registered for the sole purpose of voting in this single election actually showed up for the very election they registered for. That's like saying 60-70% of the people watching the first movie of a double feature actually stayed to watch the second movie. To me, such a low "turnout" is appalling.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Igel]

5. No Sunni Arab candidates ... esp. after they withdrew their names

from the running (or were killed).

This is the ulema that have no problem talking to kidnappers.

Again, I note that nearly every Sunni Arab says the elections are wrong, a sham, un-Islamic, immoral, and bad for the teeth. I suspect if they were slated to get 65% of the vote, the positions would be reversed.

[OldVlad]

9. There were Sunni candidates

Some did withdraw, which there is no dishonor in doing, but they had candidates. They can't expect to win very many seats with only 20%, fact is there weren't supposed to be any Sunni's voting in this at all, and the Sunni's were supposed to be able to intimidate the Shia, or that was what I was lead to believe.

As it stands they had more % voting then we did in our most important election recently, and as much as I wanted to cast my ballot against Bush, I wouldn't have if I thought the booth might get hit with a rocket. These people obviously wanted Bush's version of elections more then I imagined. He must be have a great cackle today back slapping his Neocon cabinet at my expense.

[Igel]

22. I stand corrected.

I have to remember to be cautious in using words like "no", "none", and "never". Sigh.

[shrike]

47. The Iraqis have voted in free elections before

Some Iraqis may still remember, and participated in, those held in the '50s.

Those elections were held during the British occupation and we all know how that turned out. The Brits were much better at dealing with far-flung places than we are. They, too, planned to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.

[hector459]

6. This is the story that the MSM does not want Americans to see.

These elections were just a shade above those held by Saddam. Certainly Iranian elections were more legitimate.

[underthedome]

7. Proud of the Iraq Elections

Lot of people whining around here, almost seems that people here are disappointed that Iraqi's showed up to vote. Was this the best election? No, but I'd say it was pretty damn good considering the situation.

[no_to_war_economy]

8. this shame election enables * policy of war=democracy

the ends DO not justify the means

[underthedome]

11. I disagree

A. I haven't seen any proof that this election was a sham.

B. Policy of war = Democracy will not sell in Washington, Iraq is/was a unique situation. Fear sold this war, nothing else. Democracy will not sell war to the public, you can take that to the bank.

[VegasWolf]

30. So you think Iraq has democracy under the bush puppets. n/t

[w4rma]

35. That photo lampoons itself. It doesn't even need to be edited. (nt)

[ElectroPrincess]

14. Was it worth losing 1400+ lives ? We went in there ONLY for WMD.

[Magleetis]

15. Considering the situation?

you mean the situation of an illegal invasion and occupation of a nation based on lies. The situation of thousands of dead innocents and American soldiers. Democracy can not be forced on people through violence. The election may be a ray of hope but the mission in Iraq is doomed to failure. Just stay under the rock and everything will be fine.

[conservdem]

32. I generally agree.

I am pleased with the election went as well as it did. I am trying to be optomistic that things will go well in the not too long run over there.

[cthrumatrix]

10. don't let facts get in the way of a "bushite scam" -- Mission Accomplished

[Itsthetruth]

12. Who Ran For The National Assembly?

The names of most candidates running for the Iraqi National Assembly were not even listed on the ballots! And little or no information is being circulated to voters on what any of the candidates stand for, even for those few who have their names on the so-called ballots!

More than 100 political parties were list on the ballots. And each party presented a SECRET list of candidates with at least 12 SECRET names and no more than 275. No information was given to voters on platform of the parties and once again in most cases the candidates were not identified!

Could anyone seriously say we had an election in the United States if "candidates" running for Congress did not have their names on the ballots and if not a single piece of literature was circulated indicating what the candidates (named and un-named and their parties (100+) stood for?

[Itsthetruth]

13. A Victory For The Shia?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3033998

[callous taoboy]

16. Rush to accuse, rush to war, rushed elections-

* and his cronies have a problem. It's called premature ejaculation.

[xkxxkx]

20. Own house in order?

Strange to see Al Jazeera whining about an Arab country's application of Democracy, being that under penalty of law, they have no right to criticize the emirs of Bahrain and Qatar.

[Magleetis]

21. Aljazeera was not whining

about anything. Muhammad al-Kubaysi told Alzazeera why he was critical of the elections. I don't see any Arab country applying democracy. I see an occupying army forcing democracy on a country through violence. Welcome to DU.

[xkxxkx]

23. Forced democracy = oxymoron.

Muhammad al-Kubaysi has never in his life cast a ballot. Neither has the article's author.

[Magleetis]

24. If Iraq wants to apply democracy so badly

why do they need 150,000 American troops?

[xkxxkx]

25. What's your point? If troops are needed, they don't want democracy?

Because the last thing on Saddam's, and now the Islamist's mind, is the well being of regular Iraqi people.

[xkxxkx]

26. *if*

Are you opposed to Iraqi moves toward self determination? Do you question the legitimacy of Japan's democracy? Germany? Did France have ulterior motives for helping the American Revolutionaries?--Oops bad example. They wanted to give the Brits a black eye, nonetheless is the US government or its Constitution illegitimate?


Are you opposed to Iraqi moves toward self determination?

[shrike]

29. Only if they intend to let us stay

If they want to kick us out -- go for it, guys!

[Magleetis]

34. I am not opposed

to Iraq's move towards democracy if that is what they really want. So far all I see is imperialist America forcing its will on the people of Iraq. The ones that don't want democracy are labeled insurgents and killed. Democracy does not come by elections held under occupation. That is my point.

[xkxxkx]

36. ...if IF's and BUT's were candy and nuts.................

"if that is what they really want."

Of course that's what they want, and millions more in Iran and Syria who watched Iraqi expats vote in their countries want it too.

"So far all I see is imperialist America forcing its will on the people of Iraq."

Try taking off the blinders and the tinfoil hat. It's painfully obvious that your views stem from disdain, not sympathy for, or solidarity with, a given group of people.

"The ones that don't want democracy are labeled insurgents and killed."

As they should be! Don't let the moniker fool you. An insurgent would be an Iraqi who has in mind a VIABLE form of government from within their own frame work. They should be killed, they should not be labled insurgents.

"Democracy does not come by elections held under occupation. That is my point."

Ah, but it DOES! That's my point. I submit Japan, Germany, and to some extent, America. Three shining examples of fair democracy, all brought about at tip of a rifle. Do you question the legitimacy of these governments?

[Magleetis]

37. Nice try

if you are arguing to persuade don't waste your time. We tried the democracy thing in Iran with the Shaw and look how that ended up. I sympathize with the thousands of Iraqis the US has killed in cold blood. What about their democracy? You know nothing about me or my views. There is no comparison between the countries you mention and the situation in Iraq. First it was WMD then Saddam is bad now its freedom and democracy for the people of Iraq. If you are so gung-ho on democracy in Iraq why don't you go over there and help them out.

[xkxxkx]

39. Failed Domocracies- the ones we didn't bomb.

"You know nothing about me or my views."
"if you are arguing to persuade don't waste your time."

--Did I call those blinders, or what?

"I sympathize with the thousands of Iraqis the US has killed in cold blood"

--called the tinfoil hat, too.

"There is no comparison between the countries you mention and the situation in Iraq."

--Japan and Germany. Both are vibrant, productive democracies formed out of the ashes of their complete destruction. As opposed to your example of:

"We tried the democracy thing in Iran with the Shaw and look how that ended up."

--The Mad Mullahs and the Weirdbeards moved in the minute Mistah Cahtuh turned his back. To that list, I would add Clinton's Haiti. What a wonderful democracy that turned out to be. Not that I care who the President is/was,(I'm falling into your trap, garbage in, garbage out) just that it's possible to start the process with violence and destruction, and end up successful.

"First it was WMD then Saddam is bad now its freedom and democracy for the people of Iraq."

--What's next?! Peace in the Middle East? Peace on Earth? Where does this madness end?

"If you are so gung-ho on democracy in Iraq why don't you go over there and help them out. "

--I did send a $40 phone card to an annonymous GI, and my wife and I donated our skymiles to the wounded warrior project. That, and keeping the good word out for them, is all I can do.

[shrike]

40. Wow, a phone card

And sky miles, too.

Read a history book about how well the British occupation of Iraq (which featured elections, btw) turned out, then come back and discuss this.

[xkxxkx]

42. Read whose history?

Wow! Some seriously shallow waters here. My analogies are to countries that we invaded and left with a representative govt. not to countries that we didn't invade, or countries that aren't us.

[shrike]

43. Try reading history about the region you're talking about

You're talking about Iraq, dear. Therefore, bone up on its history before you blow smoke about it.

[xkxxkx]

46. Lethologica

Do you have a point to make? Is it backed by any form of information?

[shrike]

49. My point?

There is information all over the 'net about Iraq pre-Saddam (Iraq became Iraq after WWI, when the Brits conquered the Ottoman empire. They then became its occupiers for decades, with the idea of bringing freedom and democracy to the region: sound familiar? They arranged for free elections, too; how about that?) If you insist on comparing Axis Allies to a Mideastern country that technically did not exist until the 20th century, at least acquaint yourself with said country before doing so.

[xkxxkx]

50. Caution: Extremely Shallow Waters

We're not there to change any Intl. borders, and uh...psst. WWII happened in the 20th century too, ya know.

[mallard]

52. Re: Cheerleader in the war for Israel

QUOTE: xkxxkx:

"Of course that's what they want, and millions more in Iran and Syria who watched Iraqi expats vote in their countries want it too."

As a self-assured representative of regional interests, are you saying Iranians and Syrians generally wish to see their countries turn out more like Iraq has since America has delivered? What evidence does it take for someone like yourself to stray from backing the official program?

There's just not enough going right for Iraq to support this imperialist hype. The low-turnout election has been a secretive exercise in bolstering an illegal occupation. You're saying it's a good thing.

Is Iran or Syria 'next' in your opinion, for the democracy thing?


"Try taking off the blinders and the tinfoil hat. It's painfully obvious that your views stem from disdain, not sympathy for, or solidarity with, a given group of people."

Here, the newcomer cuts down a person actually supporting the local perspective (see article) to insist the occupation is proving valid - and does so with biting insults and outright false accusations, as if doing damage to the other would further his cause. Given the method, that cause could only be control and domination.

They attacked us first - right, xkxxkx?

"Painfully obvious", xkxxkx is a war backer who doesn't think much of the tens of thousands dead for naught, let alone an innocent country laid to ruin .

[xkxxkx]

53. OBL Mouthpiece

"As a self-assured representative of regional interests, are you saying Iranians and Syrians generally wish to see their countries turn out more like Iraq has since America has delivered?"

--I should have known better than to quote the MSM. I'm saying Iran, Syria and Iraq wish to see their countries turn out more like America. I give the Bedouin mind the credit it has earned. They have the same long list of failed Arab states that I do.

"What evidence does it take for someone like yourself to stray from backing the official program?"

--What does it for me is a complete and total failure by this administration to secure American borders and stem illegal immigration. Crushing deficits and spending on entitlements like drunken sailors on shore duty. Where are the conservatives? Flakjacketing our National Guard and sending them overseas to get shot is politically cheaper than using our Trillion-dollar floating and flying fortresses. I try not to tie it all to just the President. I think that's unrealistic, but if I had to, I'd say the fact that Bush cares more about collateral damage to Iraqi civilians than he does to the men and women of the US military makes me want to back away. But I'm a brave man with wide vision. My views are consistent with the majority of Americans, the majority of Iraqis, and the govts. of those countries. Yours follow, to the tee, those of the Sunni, Wahabbist, Baathist minority in Iraq responsible for the OVERWHELMING majority of Iraqi civilians to date. Including the 400,000+ Iraqis, Kuwaitis and Iranians buried in 270 mass graves.


"biting insults" ?

--get a spine

[Magleetis]

55. It is possible

that we may agree on a few things. However, I don't subscribe to your ethnocentric views. America is so great therefore every country wants to be like America. I don't but it.

Here is a link I pulled from my tinfoil hat. I'm sure that the great and powerful US is not responsible for any of these deaths.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Before you pull the old "why do hate America" BS I don't hate America I served proudly in the armed forces, did you? I want Americas actions to be congruent with her rhetoric.

[reprobate]

38. The current US government? You're damn right it is illegitimate!

[daleo]

41. Japan attacked the U.S.

Germany declared war on the U.S. Iraq did neither. Quite the reverse, in fact.

[xkxxkx]

44. War on afghanistan more "illegal" than Iraq.

Germany invaded it's peace-loving, american-allied neighbors. Japan sneak-attacked us on a clear, beautiful, sunny morning.

[shrike]

45. Huh?

Every time Bush knocks down a statue, lands on an aircraft carrier or holds an election at gunpoint we get all these newbies. Hopefully this one won't hang around long.

[xkxxkx]

48. My fault

I thought this was a weblog, not a chatroom. Are the information and ideas annoying you?

[daleo]

51. The point was, Japan and Germany declared war on the U.S.

And one of them pre-emptively attacked. Therefore the U.S. had legitimate cause to attack and ultimately invade and occupy these countries. Given the circumstances, prodding them on the way to western democratic government forms was not unreasonable. U.S. troops stayed in both countries for a long time after the war (they are still there in fact), although the Soviet threat made that also not unreasonable. So, what began as occupation can reasonably be seen to have evolved into alliance. Presumably, had democratically elected governments in either Japan or Germany requested U.S. troops to withdraw, they would have.

None of these circumstances apply in Iraq. Iraq had not threatened the U.S., not attacked it, and not declared war on it. In fact the U.S. did all of these things to Iraq, and still occupies the country with a large military force. So, implanting democratic forms in Iraq is not the same thing as it was in Germany or Japan - it is the imposition of a government by an occupying force. Furthermore, U.S. troops cannot reasonably be seen as allies to Iraq now or in the foreseeable future - just an occupation force. Any government put into power under these circumstances will have severely compromised legitimacy, if any at all, with its own people.

Perhaps if U.S. troops were to leave Iraq, the government that has been put into place by the occupation might eventually gain legitimacy. But not as long as the occupation army is still the ultimate power in the country.

[ProfessorGAC]

54. Get A History Book

Germany had democracy before WWII. That's how Hitler came to power. We didn't enforce democracy there, WE RESTORED IT! You should know some of the facts before your formulate an opinion. It might add weight to an otherwise lightweight post.
The Professor

[xkxxkx]

56. ....today's acedemia

"Germany had democracy before WWII. That's how Hitler came to power. We didn't enforce democracy there, WE RESTORED IT!"

It seems you and I have indeed read the same history books and are on the same page. As to why you think the Iraqi situation is more comparable to the Ottoman Empire than Germany, that's between you and your psych class.

[ProfessorGAC]

57. I Made No Such Comparison

You made that comparison in your mind. I never said any such thing.

Defending your pathetically weak premise by putting words into my mouth, and insulting me, is not exactly going to push twoard seeing any merit in your posts. I didn't before; i see even less now. Like i said, you should have your facts straight, BEFORE you formulate a position. And don't make up convenient facts after the fact. That's even more intellectually dishonest.
The Professor

[conservdem]

31. Good point.

[Cocoa]

27. they're obviously not watching American TV

it's unanimous on TV that these elections were pure good, and anyone who says anything bad about them is just a bitter liberal that doesn't want to give Bush credit.

[cap]

33. so who's gonna say that the emperor has no clothes???