Posted on 02/02/2005 8:29:17 PM PST by quidnunc
Will today's elections for 7,785 unknown candidates in violence-racked Iraq mark the dawn of genuine Mideast democracy, as U.S. President George W. Bush claims, or be another step deeper into the bloody quagmire in Mesopotamia?
First, no election held under a foreign military occupation resulting from an unjustified war is legal under international law. During the Cold War, elections staged by the Soviets after invading Afghanistan, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were rightly denounced by the U.S. as "frauds" and the leaders elected as "stooges."
Second, Shiites, excluded from political power since Britain created Iraq in 1921, will win since they represent 60% of the population. Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani issued a fatwa, or religious decree, ordering the faithful to vote for the Shiites' coalitions.
Sistani made what some see as a pact with the devil. He is abetting at least temporary U.S. occupation and exploitation of oil-rich Iraq in exchange for Washington handing power to his fellow "good" Shiites — not to be confused with Iran's "bad" Shiites, who are facing U.S.-Israeli attack. "Good" Shiites don't sport turbans; they sideline clerics and avoid angry Islamic mutterings.
Iraq's pro-U.S. Kurds will elect their own coalitions determined to keep their oil revenues and create a state independent in all but name.
Sunnis have lost all the power and perks they previously enjoyed, they lead resistance against U.S. occupation. They will be the odd men out, at the mercy of the hated Shiites, a sect long persecuted by mainstream Sunni Muslims as dangerous heretics and fanatics.
Third, the U.S.-"guided" regime emerging from the vote will be one of form without much substance, unless a new Shiite regime revolts and asserts its independence.
For now, Iraq's real government will continue to be the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the world's largest, and 150,000 U.S. occupation troops.
Every important Iraqi ministry is run by U.S. "advisers" who call the shots and allocate all spending. Power comes from guns and money. The U.S. controls and pays Iraq's low-morale police and native troops who, in a nation with 70% unemployment, mostly serve to feed families.
-snip-
It's not often that we break out the 34-inch Wetware Debugging Device™ here at the Gulag, partly because the blogosphere has so many other copious and capable Cluebatters, but also because it's not every day that one finds a target big enough to justify the use of the really heavy weaponry. I don't go fishing with hand-grenades, I don't swat flies with sledgehammers, and I don't do Wetware Debuggings, as a rule, on people who might have some smidgen of right on their side.
Eric Margolis is a viable target. The stupidity of his Toronto Sun column of 30 January is rivalled only by its calculated offensiveness to as many people as possible. Evidently Mr. Margolis is a millipede: he has that many feet in his mouth.
Pour yourselves a cold drink before you read on. This will take a while… .
The Toronto blat titles this column 'Real freedom still far off', but the Calgary edition bills it as 'Iraqi quagmire grows deeper'. Both good, stock Idiotarian headlines, good for almost any Bush-bashing story about Iraq. Both have precious little to do with the substance of Mr. Margolis's screed. But that's OK, because the substance is so thin and paltry that it would be uncharitable for the Sun chain's headline writers to draw attention to it.
I mean, if the column had been slugged 'Bush's plan works, but he's still evil, wrong, and unusually retarded for a chimp', that would at least have been an honest label of the contents. Which contents we shall now examine line by line, as they contain about the best summary of pig-headed fatuousness on the subject of Iraq that you will ever see gathered under one byline:
Will today's elections for 7,785 unknown candidates in violence-racked Iraq mark the dawn of genuine Mideast democracy, as U.S. President George W. Bush claims, or be another step deeper into the bloody quagmire in Mesopotamia?
What quagmire would this be, Mr. Margolis? In four weeks in 2003, the U.S. and its allies did what the U.N., the Transnational Left, the Hollywood Peace Brigade, and the Iranian army had failed to do in 24 years of trying: get rid of Saddam Hussein. When Iraq was ruled by a man who killed hundreds of thousands of hs own subjects as a matter of cold-blooded policy, that was a quagmire.
What's that, sir? You mean it's a quagmire because the U.S. has taken casualties? More U.S. servicemen died in the training exercises for D-Day than in the entire Iraq campaign to date. Though I find it hard to see why that matters to you. I mean, one so filled with bile against the Americans as yourself ought to be quite happy to see Americans die on battlefields so that Iraqis don't have to die in plastic-shredders. Or do you place even less value on the lives of Iraqis than you do on U.S. soldiers? That would be hard to do, but I suppose there is such a thing as less than zero.
First, no election held under a foreign military occupation resulting from an unjustified war is legal under international law. During the Cold War, elections staged by the Soviets after invading Afghanistan, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were rightly denounced by the U.S. as "frauds" and the leaders elected as "stooges."
Because in those elections, there was one slate of candidates, no secret ballot, and every poll was manned by a helpful KGB man with a gun, in case any of the voters didn't understand what was expected of them. For the same reason, Saddam's 'election' in 2002 was a fraud. It's only a real election, Mr. Margolis, when the voters have a choice of candidates.
Please note that the Western Allies also 'staged' elections in Europe after the Second World War. These were not denounced as 'frauds', because the whole spectrum of political parties in each country was allowed to field candidates — including, in most cases, the Communist Party. (In some parts of liberated France, it was almost abnormal to find a mayor who was not a Communist.)
If 'international law' has anything to do with this, Mr. Margolis, please tell me what law you're referring to.
(Pause for deafening silence)
One up, one down.
-snip-
(Jay Random in Shiny Happy Gulag, January 31, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
Dennis Kucinich=Eric Margolis
Separated at birth...
Also dark and pessimistic, yet intriguing, is the latest offering from the Randians:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4121
"First, no election held under a foreign military occupation resulting from an unjustified war is legal under international law."
Poor little Eric. he obviously believes he is Chief Justice of the World, but unfortunately no one has appointed him to that position.
Ditto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.