Did you answer G's question, FD?

I'm curious. I'd like to know your answer.

Gandalf can you explain on what basis you claim to speak for the majority of Iraqis in promoting this alternative.

Also, where did you hear this story of the alternative constitution?

Quote:


Your suggesting. Is your preferred option for Muslim leaders to run the place without any sort of constitution?

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2019 at 12:53pm:



gandalf,

Do you feel that it is true,      ....that all devout followers of ISLAM believe that the Koran should be the primary source and authority for all of the laws,
which would govern a moslem majority society ?



Quote:
- Mild mannered - Mohammed Morsi - one time Ex-President of Egypt

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 15^th, 2019 at 1:34pm:


Would you say you are proposing an alternative constitution?

wasn't there some rule about using peoples names in thread titles?

Thanks John. Consider my wrist slapped.

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2019 at 10:11pm:


Sorry if I wasn't clear FD, but I was describing events that happened in the immediate aftermath of the invasion - in 2003. There was no constitution then.

My complaint was that the first thing the US occupation forces did was to shut down any local attempts at setting up democracy.

They were not attempting to set up their own autonomous fiefdoms FD. Read the 2003 article I linked before.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 5:11pm:


You do realise you cannot have multiple competing "democratically elected" governments all claiming to rule the same country, right Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2019 at 9:25pm:


They are local governments FD. I believe they exist in most countries in the world.

And the US wasn't stopping the existence of these types of government, they just didn't want the Iraqis to choose the members. Instead they hand picked them - as explained in the article.

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 2:46pm:


Again, clearly explained in the article:

Quote:


My understanding is that these local delegates were to be the representatives in a federal government. In any case this was the US's idea  - to create representative local councils.

So the Iraqis started doing this - democratically - until the US finally caught on to the fact that this was actual democracy, and therefore unacceptable. So they put a stop to it.

Of course you can argue, as Bremer did in the article, that there are sound reasons to subvert democracy in this case (in the chaos of post-invasion the extremists are best placed to organise in a democracy), but the fact remains that it was subverted.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 3:53pm:


And apparently no one came up with a pre-invasion memo to distribute to the occupation planning team to explain that anyone taking up a public service position under Sadaam were required to join the Baath party. And Iraq was a particularly 'big government' country.

It quite beggars belief - did the US seriously not understand this beforehand, or did they actually knowingly put literally half the entire workforce of Iraq out of a job?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 6:25pm:

Gist: farkd before, during, after Saddam. America's  fault, of course.  Nuffin else to see here.

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2019 at 8:37pm:


From my article:

Quote:


a quick google search confirms that this 'successful employment' in Kirkuk was indeed democratic:

Quote:


So this was not some rogue unauthorised power grab by Iraqis - this was specifically blessed and even helped organized by the Americans.

But alas the embracing of Iraqi democracy by American occupation forces was short lived - and moves to repeat the democratic process in other Iraqi cities were quickly quashed - and instead of elections, the Iraqis got selections.

On the contrary FD, thats the bit where the US facilitated and championed democracy. I only pointed this out because you were suggesting that this was some rogue, unauthorised activity by the Iraqis to form breakaway fiefdoms - that necessarily had to be stopped by the US in the interests of order.

I hope now you have a better understanding of the sequence of events:

1. the US initially encourage and help the Iraqis set up local councils/delegates for a federal government
2. the US suddenly realise that actual democracy is a bad idea - as the Iraqis might freely elect the wrong guys
3. the US do a backflip and put a halt to this democracy, and instead impose their own handpicked local reps.

Again, all clearly explained in the article I posted.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 11:29am:


They did, that would be point 3 in my last post 

Sure:

Quote:

You may recall I addressed that point yesterday FD - I stated that I believed these local delegates/councils were chosen as representatives for a future federal parliament. I may be wrong though.

My point still stands though - whether federally or locally, the US decided to shut down Iraqi democracy - after initially supporting it.

I don't believe I've changed the subject at all FD. Can you explain exactly what I haven't "followed through on"?

Do you agree that the US shut down Iraqi democracy after initially supporting it?

I never took up the issue of the constitution - so I can hardly be accused of dropping it can I? 

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 9:10pm:


You never explained how they could form an alternative federal government without an alternative constitution. Unless of course it is an Islamofascist dictatorship.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 25^th, 2019 at 9:08am:


It was an alternative to the one being developed by the Americans. You seem kind of desperate for any way to avoid understanding the question.

I see holding two concepts in your head at once is a bit too much to ask.

You proposed a federal constitution (or a thinly disguised Islamofascist regime) as an alternative to the federal constitution being developed by the US, in an attempt to paint the US as opposing democracy. You have spent many pages since evading and trying to change the topic.

Let me know if you need me to start underlining the words for you.

So you proposed a federal Islamofascist dictatorship?

You are backpedaling Gandalf. You were talking about appointing a federal government "democratically". So how does that work? Under some kind of constitution, or a back door to Islamofascism cheered on by all the 'good Muslims'?

Quote:


Your complaint was about America 'destroying democracy' by forcibly preventing such a federal system.

Only a Muslim on a desperate quest to criticise the US would accuse them of forcibly destroying democracy in Iraq.

And you did say more. You went on about a democratically elected federal government which was also somehow appointed, in the absence of any kind of constitution. Now you are backpedaling.

Would you actually prefer each local administration in Iraq was built on an ad hoc basis?

Can I nominate Gandalf for sainthood?

Sorry FD, you are still avoiding the indisputable fact that the US cancelled elections (after initially supporting them) and opted for hand picked appointments. You can't quite bring yourself to come out openly and say that this is not a clear cut case of shutting down democracy. Its frankly difficult for that glaring fact to go unnoticed.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 7:10pm:


I'm officially pointing out for no less than the fourth time that I believed that the local election process was electing members for a future federal government. I will also officially point out yet again that I acknowledge I could be wrong. Exactly what do you suppose I am hiding from here FD? I'm not sure how more clear and open I can be on this point. Please can you at least acknowledge this 'declaration' of mine the next time you accuse me of backflipping or avoiding the issue of the federal government? At least try and make a case for how I can still be backflipping/avoiding this issue in spite of the above declaration can you please? That would at least be slightly more productive than simply repeating the same accusation while ignoring altogether the fact that I have repeatedly addressed the issue.

Frank wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 8:31pm:


Those who like Danish?

Carpetbomb them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:59am:



Exactly.  You can't refute it so you do the karnal.

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 9:13pm:


I'm not exactly sure how one goes about refuting the accusation that me, my family, and all nearly 2 billion muslims from all corners of the globe, to a man woman and child all "act and think like Saddam".

With the greatest respect, I actually think it belittles the person who even bothers to try. And so thats where "never ever" comes in.

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 9:04am:


So they had to destroy democracy to make democracy better?

And lets not hide behind euphemisms like "US action" FD - lets be clear on what that action was: shutting down elections, after initially supporting them - and replacing them with handpicked appointments.

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 1:02pm:


No FD, this is the point which you continue to misunderstand. They did not end regional self rule, they stopped the election of regional rulers, and instead appointed their own hand picked selections. Local governments continued to be created. Its just that they owed their loyalty to Haliburton and the US army, not the Iraqi people.

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 1:02pm:


Try and say it FD, I know its hard: the US shut down local elections after initially supporting them. The regions were then ruled by hand picked US appointments. This is whats known as "destroying democracy" 

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 1:02pm:


absolutely, never ever, on stilts 

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 1:54pm:


Al Zaqawwi and other authoritarian Islamists didn't pop up until much after the US put a halt to local elections. Is there some causation going on there? Well lets see, if you really wanted to plan to create a violent insurgency in a country you just invaded, how would you do it? Its quite possible the US overthrow of Saddam is a textbook model for this: step 1. immediately fire the entire public service, and replace these local bureaucrats with imported US contractors working for US firms like Haliburton. Don't give any consideration for whether these contractors have any skills or experience in running essential Iraqi services. Step 2: start organizing genuine local elections, just enough for the Iraqis to warm to the idea of democracy, then abruptly shut them down, and replace elections with hand picked US selections. Step 3: have absolutely no oversight or accountability imposed on the foreign contractors who are controlling the entire Iraqi economy and bureaucracy, leading to rampant and systemic corruption. In this environment US contractors and US hand picked local governors work hand in hand in a mutually beneficial extortion racket at the direct expense of the Iraqi people.

Is it possible to think of a more efficient way to turn an occupied country against you? I'm struggling.

Oh, and in case anyone is sceptical of the link between shutting down democracy and the rise of the widescale corruption and extortion that came with the outsourcing of the entire country to private foreign companies - just listen to what the original governor (who supported elections - and was sacked for it), had to say...

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Reading between the lines, it seems clear that when the US occupation forces started organizing and supporting local elections, this was a specific initiative of General Garner himself, but which was opposed by the US government from the beginning. And he was sacked because of this. The US government it turns out had been from the beginning (as early as 2001) planning for a specifically undemocratic Iraq specifically in order to facilitate mass privatisation and takeover by US corporations.

I guess even the neocons understood that you can't 'democratically' hand over your country to foreign corporations.

Pulllleeeeezzzze on and on it goes.

I mean it's all the great satans' fault even a silly bloody Christian would know that.

Oh and another thing------ the Christians never ever ever do one thing wrong, Yahweh says so.

-----and because they are all such good people Yahweh, has just decided that he will double the number of angels with big mammary glands and all those little cherubs scattered like pearls around heaven for their pleasure.   

Quote:


They did end regional self rule Gandalf. Iraq is still one country. It is still a democracy, despite your hysterical misrepresentation of the US "destroying democracy".

What do you think would have happened if this regional self rule had been allowed to continue and the local councils had been allowed to appoint a federal government without elections and without a constitution, as you originally suggested? Did you not realise at the time that by outlining their attempted coup you were rebutting your own ridiculous claim?

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 3:15pm:


Normal people were at an instant out of a job. How then do they feed their families? If they're really lucky there might be an opportunity to work with the occupiers or their foreign contractors. But of course that just makes you a target of the insurgents - which the occupiers could not stop. Maybe Dad and/or some of your brothers have been swept up in one of the rather indiscriminate security sweeps and sent to Abu Ghraib for torture and humiliation. Any remaining males in the household are likely approached by insurgent recruiters in one of those subtly threatening 'join us if you know whats good for you'. Besides, they are the only people offering any sort of viable living - food and a wage of the black market currency. Maybe its just a case of running an errand on their behalf just to get them off your back - and then before you know it US troops are breaking your door down. And so it goes... for nearly 10 years.

Thats what happens to normal people who just want to be fed and happy and safe with their families.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 6:26pm:

 

Tribalism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 6:26pm:


And I blame Islam (but that's just me).

Jasin wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 2:52am:


Sorry, dear, Pakistan has 6 times the population of Afghanistan and a similar arable land mass for food crops.

And yet, Pakistan has 15 times the GDP of Afghanistan. 20 billion versus 300 billion in 2017.

So I'm curious. Why do you think that is?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:35am:


Kurdistan.

But I'm talking about the local governments that were set up in the aftermath of the invasion. Initially the US supported electing them, afterwards they reneged and opted for hand picked appointments. There all we are talking about. There was no unauthorised creation of autonomous fiefdoms, which is what you seem to think happened - either before or after the US decided to shut down democracy. It was only ever about normal, run of the mill local governments, which I understand forms the local candidates for the federal parliament. This set up did not change, and as far as I know has not changed to this day. Only the process by which the representatives were chosen. Local governments in Iraq still exist.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:


No sorry it wasn't.

At no point did I say anything about any "democratic" government that was to be created without elections. That makes absolutely no sense. Local candidates, so my understanding goes, elected at the local level would be able to stand as candidates for federal elections. I didn't offer much elaboration, as it was hardly the central point of my argument (that US shut down democracy), but I did say this, as quoted in the OP:

Quote:


candidates FD, not "appointees". They would obviously have to stand in a separate election for the federal parliament.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 12:25pm:


That would indeed be hysterical, which is why I never said it. Shutting down local council elections, after initially supporting them, though, is undeniably "destroying democracy". It is so undeniable that you have been strenuously steering clear of this fundamental point.

Exactly what it says FD - the process of forming local councils as well as federal candidates democratically. Nothing about creating a federal democracy "by appointing people without elections." No idea where you got that from.

Do you actually dispute the fact that the US shut down democracy? If not, can you please offer an alternative definition for forcibly stopping local elections, after initially supporting and even organizing them?

Do you understand the disagreement within the US administration, encapsulated by the opposing views on elections between Garner (first governor) and Bremer (his replacement) - that gave rise to such a backflip by the US? Or are you still insisting it was only about the US closing down some rogue and unauthorised attempt to break the country up into autonomous fiefdoms?

I don't know exactly, and its not really important. In any case, certainly not undemocratically as you accused me of saying earlier.

The only important point here is that there was a democratic process happening in the regions of Iraq - a process blessed and even initiated by the US occupation forces. The US then did a backflip when Bremer replaced Garner, and shut down democracy - replacing elections of local officials with handpicked appointments of local officials.

The take home message I am hoping you will get from this fun conversation is a) the US undeniably shut down democracy in that post-overthrow period and b) the democracy that they shut down was certainly not any rogue, unauthorised breakaway movements as you insisted earlier, but the election of normal local governments - blessed and initiated by the US themselves (before they backflipped).