In an effort to justify his insistence that supporting US foreign policy is morally equivalent to supporting ISIS, Gandalf has taken to claiming that rather than establishing democracy in Iraq, the US actually "fought tooth and nail" against the establishment of democracy, and that the Shites somehow managed to impose it on them against their will. Over about ten pages I have managed to extract some sketchy details from Gandalf, amongst extensive rants, on how they pulled this off.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:

Oh FD, I'm not afraid to own it - the US is an imperialist that systematically tramps around the third world destroying democracy wherever they feel it hinders their economic interests. Of course this includes Iraq, where the US fought tooth and nail against the whole  setting up of democracy thing. It was only because of a mass grassroots shiite movement that saw something resembling a democracy - but certainly no thanks to the US efforts. And it makes sense - Iraqi democracy can really only mean one thing - the majority shiite population voting to align themselves closely with shiite Iran, who is considered a direct threat to the US's Gulf buddies.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 3:38am:

Pretty much as soon as Saddam was toppled, local provinces started organising to elect local councils as a first step to (democratically) selecting candidates for the much anticipated general election. Not surprisingly, the Bremer regime moved swiftly to ban any such meetings and elections, and laid down laws that the provincial councils must instead be handpicked by the US occupiers. Interestingly this clampdown was widely reported at the time, but not many people seemed to appreciate the significance of it - probably because it was the same time as the sunni insurgency was just starting to fire up.

What was widely reported was that the US itself set up one local election, then changed it's mind.


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 11:27am:

But you need only to apply the same argument that the Nazis "created" Germany's prosperity today to see how silly it is: for without them the allies wouldn't have declared war on Germany, wouldn't have invaded and reduced the country to rubble, and wouldn't have rebuilt the country virtually from scratch, along with billions and billions in aid.

Gandalf are you suggesting that the US role in Iraq was more similar to that of the Nazis in Germany rather than the allied forces that liberated west Germany and re-established constitutional democracy?


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 11:27am:

freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 6:58pm: Are you suggesting they should have had elections to see who could be candidates for the election? Of course. All genuine democracies have some democratic preselection process - you might have heard about the US process currently underway to select candidates for the presidential election later this year.

This is simply not true Gandalf. You propose an absurdly redundant democratic mechanism and reveal an infantile understanding of the functioning of democracy.


Quote:

Also the local councils that the Bremer regime objected to and banned were intended to manage local administration - as any local government does, in addition to providing the process of preselecting national candidates for an eventual national election.

Why would the US encourage the development of a hodge-podge of local-based candidate selection processes in parallel to a federal constitution? That does not make sense. It would only undermine the federal constitution, which was established by a democratic process.


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

Excellent point FD - as your own wiki article said, council elections were established in 2013 - a full two years after the US left.

This was not because the US was getting in the way. The US opposed council elections prior to (ie outside of) the establishment of a federal constitution. They facilitated local elections within the framework of a federal constitution. Elections for the establishment of the federal constitution were held less than two years after the invasion, and the first federal elections were held that same year. That's pretty good progress if you ask me. You will have trouble pinning the delay from then until 2013 on the US.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 1:49pm:

You know what FD? They have elections in Syria too. Have the rebels and the US seen the list of recent elections? They all seem to have this crazy idea that the Syrian regime is undemocratic. Oh if only they had just seen this list of elections they would know how established democracy is in Syria - 5 years of war and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared!

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:55pm: They had elections under Saddam too. The 2005 elections under the US occupation were described by a wide variety of international groups as the first ever free and fair elections in Iraq. If you have any real evidence that the elections since Saddam were conducted in a similar manner, perhaps you should present that rather than constantly whining about oil contracts and drawing vague allusions. No one is saying the elections themselves weren't free and fair, or that they were anything like Saddam's elections. Iraqis freely and fairly voted between an exclusive list of occupation yes men - having no opportunity to vote for any candidate that opposed or in any way threatened the occupation - even though that occupation systematically robbed the Iraqi people of their economic sovereignty.

Can you explain what you mean by free and fair? Why else would you introduce the comparison to elections in Syria? Why would you describe a system in which candidates are imposed on the people as being free? Do you not know what these words mean?


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:55pm: It is up to the parties involved how they select candidates, and they can do it however they want. Or in the case of Iraq - it was up to the occupying power involved how they selected candidates, and they did it however they wanted.

Which of the candidates are you suggesting were imposed by the US?

FD, how did the US fight for democracy in Iraq?

This is a question. You could say I haven’t been very successful at extracting sketchy details so far.

If you don’t mind, I’d also like to know what you mean by free and fair. Do you agree with the old boy that this means oppressing the bastards?

G’s provided answers to all your questions already. You’ve just quoted them. Would you like to provide some answers yourself?

We’re all keen to know what you think.

I think it is pretty straightforward, and it would take the grandest of conspiracies to uphold Gandalf's version of events.


freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 9:16pm:

Elections have been held in Iraq, with US support, in January 2005 (22 months after the invasion - to establish a constitution), December 2005, 2010, 2013 (for local government) and 2014. The next federal election is due in 2018. There are 3 secular parties with seats in parliament.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

In an effort to justify his insistence that supporting US foreign policy is morally equivalent to supporting ISIS, Gandalf has taken to claiming that rather than establishing democracy in Iraq, the US actually "fought tooth and nail" against the establishment of democracy,

I thought they gave it away when they picked who would be president before giving control back to the Iraq govt.

I take it you disapprove of who the Iraqi people voted for?

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 8:57pm:

I take it you disapprove of who the Iraqi people voted for?

I don't care who they vote for.

You are making a habit of posting strong opinions on things you do not care about lately.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

I think it is pretty straightforward, and it would take the grandest of conspiracies to uphold Gandalf's version of events. freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 9:16pm: Elections have been held in Iraq, with US support, in January 2005 (22 months after the invasion - to establish a constitution), December 2005, 2010, 2013 (for local government) and 2014. The next federal election is due in 2018. There are 3 secular parties with seats in parliament.

FD, no one thinks the US established democracy in Iraq, and G has already proved they actively fought against it.

If you think the opposite is so straight forward, why don’t you want to say why? Are you scared of expressing your point of view?

There’s no need to be. We’re all friends  here, FD.

Apparently this started as your opinion - that the US fought against democracy in Iraq. But you never owned it.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Apparently this started as your opinion - that the US fought against democracy in Iraq. But you never owned it.

Oh, you haven’t been doing your reading, FD, but never mind that.

Are you going to own Uncle’s democracy efforts in Iraq, or would you prefer to keep that one hush-hush?

I think they fought in support of democracy in Iraq, and still do to the extent of their continuing involvement. I don't think they could have justified their presence to themselves or anyone else without democracy as the end game.

What do you think?

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 6:58pm:

I think they fought in support of democracy in Iraq, and still do to the extent of their continuing involvement. I don't think they could have justified their presence to themselves or anyone else without democracy as the end game. What do you think?

I think you need to try a little harder than that.

More, so do you.

Do you think the US fought against democracy in Iraq Karnal?

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 8:45pm:

Do you think the US fought against democracy in Iraq Karnal?

Asking for an answer, are you?

Karnal wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Do you think the US fought against democracy in Iraq Karnal? Asking for an answer, are you?

Of course he is.  Only FD can ask the questions here.  Maybe one day, over the rainbow, and where skys are blue and you can wish upon a star....and why can't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSZxmZmBfnU

Gandalf do you support the current Iraqi government and the system that put them in place?

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 7:51am:

Gandalf do you support the current Iraqi government and the system that put them in place?

Going to answer your question?

I think this conversation is both sides flogging a dead horse!

"Getting nowhere fast"

;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:24am:

What democratic "political institutions" did the US set up S? Details if you can - meaningless bumper-sticker slogans are rather easy.

;D

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/1359#1359

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:06am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:24am: What democratic "political institutions" did the US set up S? Details if you can - meaningless bumper-sticker slogans are rather easy. ;D

What do you think, FD? Do you concur with the old boy's platform of oppression?

And how did Uncle establish democracy in Iraq? The old boy's source said he didn't.

As a champion of human rights, women's rights, democracy and Freeeeeedom, what do you think?

as every socialist knows....


Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 8:38am:

freediver wrote on Feb 10th, 2016 at 6:14pm: Quote: There's no spin in this, it's all on the public record. As is the US fighting tooth and nail against democracy in Iraq, apparently. Do you realise how difficult you make it to take you seriously Karnal? Oh, FD, are you saying you haven't read any of our posts on Iraq? Of course Uncle fought tooth and nail against democracy in Iraq. Everyone involved says so. The only few who maintained the line were the Bush administration. Of course you don't take this seriously. You're now an official, card-carrying spineless apologist for Uncle. Only a cowering, arse-covering apologist would support Uncle's little coup in Iran. What sort of advocate for democracy would not take naked US imperialism seriously?

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 8:43am:

as every socialist knows.... Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 8:38am: freediver wrote on Feb 10th, 2016 at 6:14pm: Quote: There's no spin in this, it's all on the public record. As is the US fighting tooth and nail against democracy in Iraq, apparently. Do you realise how difficult you make it to take you seriously Karnal? Oh, FD, are you saying you haven't read any of our posts on Iraq? Of course Uncle fought tooth and nail against democracy in Iraq. Everyone involved says so. The only few who maintained the line were the Bush administration. Of course you don't take this seriously. You're now an official, card-carrying spineless apologist for Uncle. Only a cowering, arse-covering apologist would support Uncle's little coup in Iran. What sort of advocate for democracy would not take naked US imperialism seriously?

This is FD answering a question.

Google: taqiyya. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 10:07am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:45am: You’ve also disclosed that Saddam had erections. Saddam's elections were the outcome... of democracy. Apparently.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 10:40am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 10:07am: Karnal wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:45am: You’ve also disclosed that Saddam had erections. Saddam's elections were the outcome... of democracy. Apparently.

This is FD answering another question.

Sounds like he would agree with Gandalf. Perhaps he has been reading from the same pamphlet.


double plus good wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:20pm:

Hilali on Egyptian TV (same interview) In the half-hour program Sheik Hilaly said the controversy showed how standards were skewed and claims were fabricated. "There is no freedom and no democracy [for Muslims] - the most dishonest and unjust people are Western people and the English in particular." He said Australian law allowed freedoms that at times were "close to madness", and that Australia had a third gender of "in-between people who are not male or female". :D :D :D :D :D :D :D What a racist maggot.