Sheik threatens voter boycott over ballot purge (Iraq)

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

Saturday, January 30, 2010; 4:23 AM

RAMADI, Iraq -- A prominent sheik and U.S. ally is weighing whether to urge fellow Sunnis to boycott upcoming elections in protest of the government's ballot purge of hundreds of candidates suspected of links to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Such a call by Ahmed Abu Risha risks derailing Obama administration hopes that the March 7 parliamentary elections will bring stronger reconciliation between Iraq's majority Shiites and minority Sunnis who want to reclaim more political power.

It would also set back the clock on Iraqi politics - using the same protest tactic that Sunnis used in 2005 parliament voting that left them with only a few lawmakers and a weakened voice in key debates.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Abu Risha acknowledged that a boycott could throw Iraq into disarray. But the Awakening Council leader said the candidate blacklist likely will result in a low turnout among voters in Anbar, the mostly Sunni province that covers most of Iraq's western desert.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013000454.html

[maddezmom]

1. - Iraq law demands purge of Baathists, Chalabi says

BEIRUT (Reuters) - An Iraqi panel that vetoed more than 500 election candidates was only doing its job of purging former Baathists from politics, not targeting Sunni Muslims or any other group, its chairman Ahmed Chalabi said on Thursday.

The commission's move this month upset some Sunnis, whose minority community dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule, raising tensions before the March 7 parliamentary poll.

In fact, more Shi'ite Muslims than Sunnis appeared on a list of 511 barred candidates and around 50 names were later removed because they were found to have been wrongly included.

"I didn't make the law, the commission didn't make the law. We are implementing the law," Chalabi told Reuters in Beirut, denying any political interference in winnowing the candidates.
more:http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-45775120100128

[customerserviceguy]

2. Clearly, they cannot wait to resume thier squabbles that go back centuries

The only thing that kept Shia and Sunni from killing each other for decades was Saddam Hussein's iron boot on their throats. Right now, we have a leather boot keeping them down for the most part, but when we leave, it's going to turn into a clusterfuck.

Let's just get all of our troops out of there now, and let them sort it all out.

[msongs]

3. religion is sure beneficial to the people of Iraq nt

[Oldtimeralso]

4. No, Religious fanatism...

is beneficial to all people!

[happyslug]

5. The Real fight is over oil revenue.

The Shiites are from the area the OIL is located at (Southern Iraq, I am ignoring the smaller Oil patch in Northern Iraq controlled by the Kurds). The Sunnis are centered in and around Baghdad (And they have been for centuries). The Sunni dominated areas have little or no oil and thus oppose local control of oil i.e. Shiite control of the oil produced in Shiite Controlled lands (The Kurds tend to Sunni, and the Sunni Arabs around Baghdad also oppose the Kurds controlling that oil).

If you go back to the days of the Roman Empire, you will find that the modern Division between Shiite and Sunni follows roughly the border between the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire (With Baghdad more or less in the area those two Empires fought over from about 143 BC, when the Maccabees were able to free Judea from Greek Rule and allied with Rome to 622 AD when the Arab Conquest from Arabia drove both Rome and Persia out of what is now Iraq). By 700 AD, the Arabs had founded both Baghdad and Barsa and themselves had become divided along those same old lines between Sunnis (who took over the old Roman positions and Roman Arabs allies) and the Shiites (Who took over the old Persian allied arab tribes and positions).

In the 20th Century, Iraq became more modern with both Sunnis and Shiites moving to Baghdad in search of work. This lead to the Division between the two groups within Baghdad itself.

One of the statistics produced by the US Department of Labor is that 92% of all jobs are found via friends and Relatives in the US. In Iraq that is closer to 100%. Given the tendency to marry one's cousin (Common outside the "Christian" west, please note I am using the Term "Christian" is more a tribal/group name then any religion calling, thus this includes Latin America, Russia and the former nations of the old Warsaw Pact in addition to Europe and America) it is rare for someone to hire someone who is NOT related to the person doing the hiring. This is the single reason you hear of "Sunni" and "Shiites", that is their religion, but that is also the religion of their extended Family, their Tribe and the rest of their "support group". The terms "Sunni" and "Shiite", while indicating religion, is more important to the people of those two religions as how they identify themselves and the people they must support and be supportive of. This is much like the time period before the raise of the Nation-State and Nationalism in Europe. People called themselves "Christians" not because that wast their religion (And it was) but that is how they saw themselves and others i.e. a member of "Christian Europe" even if they did not believe in God. Today, if you asked anyone in the US "who he is" he will say an American, he will say what job he does, and after a few other self IDS mention his religion. In Europe in the period BEFORE the raise of Nationalism (The last 300 years) people would say their were "Christian" then their Occupation and maybe afterward their Nationality (pre Nation-state and Nationalism one's Nationality was minor compared to being a member of the greater Europe class know as a "Christian". Yes, in those days the term "Christian" was more a way of saying "Western European" then one's religion and the same is true in Iraq, one's "religion" reflects who you look to for support, the Sunnis, Arabia, Egypt etc, the Shiites Iran and most of the population of the Persian Gulf states (The Leaders of those States are Sunni, the people are Shiite thus all of them are dictatorship for the people oppose the leaders),

Anyway, back to Iraq, this is just a short statement saying religion is NOT a Factor in this fight EXCEPT as a way to identified who has historically been allied with each other (Sunnis go with Sunnis, Shiites with Shiites, Christians with Christians, through they are often crosses between these groups for example the Durze, a directive if Iraq, but who tend to be allied with Christians in Lebanon more then other Moslems, during the Crusades the Hospitalers Knights where known to protect the Assassins, a Shiite group after the Assassins were chased out of Persia by the Mongols). Such cross alliances are not unusual in other areas, an old story from Northern Ireland went this way, A Jewish Couple were asked whether they were Catholic of Protestant, when they answered they were Jewish, the question became were their Catholic Jews or Protestant Jews? In Northern Ireland the the terms Catholic and Protestant had less to do with Religion then with what class the member was. Protestant tended to be attached to the ruling elite of Northern Ireland, the Catholic tied in with the ex-Farmers that moved to the Cities of Northern Ireland to fill in various jobs that needed filled. The Protestant elite wanted to keep the situation with they on top, but found that the Catholics were moving in and demanded equal treatment. Thus the dispute was labeled along religious lines even through the conflict was about equal rights and equal treatment NOT religion. The same with the Shiites and Sunnis, the main conflict is how controls the revenue from the oil fields more then which branch of Islam is correct. The present labels for the groups tend to be religious in nature, even while the dispute is not, just like the dispute in Northern Ireland was NOT religious in Nature, but the term Catholic and Protestants were used for both groups were Irish and the real fight was over equal treatment for those Irish that moved from the Farm to the City AFTER such Cities were in the control of the first group to move into the Cities. Religion was just a way to label the two sides NOT the reason for the dispute between the two sides.