Jan. Elections Remain Misunderstood in U.S., Tenuous in Iraq

[Lisabtrucking]

Dahr Jamail is a independent reporter in iraq.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000146.php#more

What the media don't tell us.

[leftchick]

1. From the Article...

Thanks for posting this. welcome to DU Lisabtrucking :)


~snip~
With politicians and the media distorting news of the upcoming Iraqi elections, most Americans have no idea how the process will work. Meanwhile, informed skeptics look at recent history and wonder if it will work at all.

Dec 3 - Asked last week if Sunni participation was needed to make Iraq's national elections "free and fair," President Bush told reporters that he was "confident when people realize that there's a chance to vote on a President, they will participate."

Bush’s statement constitutes a significant misrepresentation of Iraq’s upcoming election, albeit one likely believed by millions of Americans. In truth, Iraqis will not be voting for a president or any other executive.

While most Americans have little idea -- or the wrong idea -- about how the so-called "transition to democracy" in Iraq is supposed to work, politicians and the media have done little to clear up misconceptions of the process. But its complexity and the hastiness with which it is being carried out are reminiscent of last summer’s experiment in assembly democracy, a development that has analysts worried that even if the election is not completely ruined by violence, it will be spoiled by political operatives.

Ottaway suspects the US is not interested in a “genuinely competitive” election come January but instead has plans to somehow weight the process in favor of Washington’s preferred outcome.
It might be politically advantageous for President Bush to oversimplify Iraq’s transitional process in a public address, but he demonstrated a much better understanding of it six months ago, when he spoke before the US Army War College.

[Disturbed]

2. Will Iraqi election change this?

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm


I have been trying to figure out how the Neo Fascists ever thought that Iraq would be a "Democracy" when the three main groups are Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds living in fairly distinct areas of the country. Yes, I know there are exceptions to that but the areas are mainly distinct.

At this time these groups would like, for the most part to have the US and UK leave and not colonize Iraq and dictate how the country should be run and who controls the oil. None of the groups wants to be dominated by any of the others. I don't feel that that the US and UK can solve Iraq's problems. I don't feel that the upcoming elections will be solving any problems either because they will be in favor of US Puppet Govt. that is in place now.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1024-02.htm