Iraqi Election Workers killed

[Stravo]

Iraqi election workers killed in drive-by shooting
Friday, December 10, 2004 Posted: 1:19 PM EST (1819 GMT)



BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iraqi election group announced Friday that three of its workers had died in a drive-by shooting earlier this week.

Sayid Essa Sayid Jaafar, a spokesman for the Hezbollah Movement in Iraq, said masked gunmen in a black BMW and a Daewoo opened fire Wednesday night on the members at a market area in the Al-Shula neighborhood of Baghdad.

Sattar Jabbar Al-Mishari, head of Hezbollah's operations in Baghdad, and two office workers died. Al-Mishari had received death threats because of his participation in the election process, Jaafar said.

This election group is not affiliated with the militant movement in Lebanon or another in Iraq that also bear the Hezbollah name.

Al-Mishari's organization is one of the groups that joined the United Iraq Alliance, the largely Shiite coalition that is fielding candidates for the January 30 election.

The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq announced a change Friday in the deadline for candidate-list registration.

Wednesday is the nationwide deadline. Previously, the cut-off had been today for 15 of 18 provinces, and Wednesday for the country's three most restive provinces -- Al-Anbar, Salah ad Din and Nineveh.

Falluja and Ramadi are in Al-Anbar, Samarra and Tikrit are in Salah ad Din and Mosul and Tal Afar are in Nineveh.

After Wednesday, the political parties and entities will not be allowed to make any further changes to their lists, names, and logos.

Helicopter accident
The coalition death toll rose during the night after an airfield accident killed two soldiers, and a Marine on security patrol in the al-Anbar province died in action. The number of U.S. troops who have died in the Iraq conflict totals 1,287 -- 1,010 in combat.

Earlier Thursday, U.S. Marines found weapons and ordnance at a school and playground in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, a U.S. military statement says.

"Marines seized a cache that included an assortment of AK-47s, RPGs, RPKs (Kalashnikov-like machine guns), various-sized mortar rounds and rockets while soldiers seized three 60-millimeter mortar systems and six 60-millimeter mortar rounds," the statement said.

Ramadi is in Iraq's expansive al-Anbar province, a region with a strong presence of Iraqi insurgents.

Also on Thursday, eight Iraqi national guard members were wounded in a mortar attack on their base in Baghdad, police said.

You have to give these fuckers credit. They have been making some devastatingly effective target choices of late. Let me ask you, can it possibly be a democracy when the instruments of that democracy are being terrorized and killed. I have a sinking feeling that Mr. Don't Look Back Bush will plow on ahead with these elections just so that he can claim a success and we will have an occupying army there until my daughter goes to College.

[Aaron]

Remember it's a successfull election even if only 60% of the country gets to vote.

[Lord Zentei]

Remember it's a successfull election even if only 60% of the country gets to vote.

What they are trying to do is to make sure that those 60% are in the southern Shia region. That way the Sunni arabs and Kurds will feel alienated and will resent the constitusion the new government adopts.

If the elections are delayed, the Shia will be pissed off and raise a shitstorm.

If the elections are not delayed the Sunni arabs and Kurds will be pissed off and raise a shitstorm.

Someone please try to describe a good scenario that might result from this mess? Other than significantly boosting the allied forces in Iraq which almost certainly won't happen...

[Aaron]

What they are trying to do is to make sure that those 60% are in the southern Shia region. That way the Sunni arabs and Kurds will feel alienated and will resent the constitusion the new government adopts.

If the elections are delayed, the Shia will be pissed off and raise a shitstorm.

If the elections are not delayed the Sunni arabs and Kurds will be pissed off and raise a shitstorm.

Someone please try to describe a good scenario that might result from this mess? Other than significantly boosting the allied forces in Iraq which almost certainly won't happen...

Just break Iraq up into three countries. Kurd, Shia, and Sunni.

[Lord Zentei]

Just break Iraq up into three countries. Kurd, Shia, and Sunni.

That is the worst-case scenario in the eyes of Ayatollah al-Sistani, the top Shia spiritual leader in Iraq. They will fight tooth and nail against it. The free Kurdish state will also alarm the Turks no end. The Sunni triangle will be vunreable against numerous powerful neighbours (they might be better off defense-wise being annexed by Syria, but that wouldn't exactly make things more democratic for them).

[Stravo]

Just break Iraq up into three countries. Kurd, Shia, and Sunni.

That is the worst-case scenario in the eyes of Ayatollah al-Sistani, the top Shia spiritual leader in Iraq. They will fight tooth and nail against it. The free Kurdish state will also alarm the Turks no end. The Sunni triangle will be vunreable against numerous powerful neighbours (they might be better off defense-wise being annexed by Syria, but that wouldn't exactly make things more democratic for them).

Not to mention we were SUPPOSED to be going in there to stop the WMD's (proven absolutely false) stabilize the region (Once again bang up job there and bring freedom to the Iraqi people - save that now we may not even have an Iraqi people and they seem to be free to either die in a cross fire or lob RPG's at our boys. Altogether a most wretched experience.

[Aaron]

That is the worst-case scenario in the eyes of Ayatollah al-Sistani, the top Shia spiritual leader in Iraq. They will fight tooth and nail against it. The free Kurdish state will also alarm the Turks no end. The Sunni triangle will be vunreable against numerous powerful neighbours (they might be better off defense-wise being annexed by Syria, but that wouldn't exactly make things more democratic for them).

I know it would cause a massive shitstorm. However each group seems to want something different. How is the Iraqi Government supposed to address all these problems while fundie assholes are running amok in the country killing everyone who disagrees with them?

The Iraqi Government is in a very bad position, they are trying to reform a country whilst under siege. And the US refuses to committ anymore troops to help maintain order. I'm starting to wonder if Bush and Co. are starting to wish if the whole mess would go away. If they didn't want the oil so bad, I'm sure that they would have cut and run by now.

[Lord Zentei]

I know it would cause a massive shitstorm. However each group seems to want something different.

I'm afraid that it's worse than that. As far as I can understand the situation there are factions that would rather start a full-blown civil war than accept disintigration, the Shia clergy among them (I may be wrong, of course). And there is still the Turks who would never sit still for an independant Kurdistan.

How is the Iraqi Government supposed to address all these problems while fundie assholes are running amok in the country killing everyone who disagrees with them?

Well, you got me there. The only glimmer of hope I can see is that the majority of people there genuinely want a united, democratic Iraq.

The Iraqi Government is in a very bad position, they are trying to reform a country whilst under siege. And the US refuses to committ anymore troops to help maintain order. I'm starting to wonder if Bush and Co. are starting to wish if the whole mess would go away. If they didn't want the oil so bad, I'm sure that they would have cut and run by now.

Possibly, though one should never underestimate the stubbornness of utopians. Besides, this may be about more than oil: if all Bush wanted was oil, wouldn't he have simply cut a deal with Saddam and pressed for a lifting of the UN sanctions?

[Aaron]

I'm afraid that it's worse than that. As far as I can understand the situation there are factions that would rather start a full-blown civil war than accept disintigration, the Shia clergy among them (I may be wrong, of course). And there is still the Turks who would never sit still for an independant Kurdistan.

I thought Shia and Sunni hated each other. Why would they want to be integrated with their enemy?

You're right, the Turks are very much opposed to a Kurdistan.

Well, you got me there. The only glimmer of hope I can see is that the majority of people there genuinely want a united, democratic Iraq.

Well I can't see them getting unless these rebels can be stamped out. That requires more troops.

Possibly, though one should never underestimate the stubbornness of utopians. Besides, this may be about more than oil: if all Bush wanted was oil, wouldn't he have simply cut a deal with Saddam and pressed for a lifting of the UN sanctions?

I'm so confused as to the Bush governments true motivations for this war that I have no idea what they want out of Iraq.

[Lord Zentei]

I thought Shia and Sunni hated each other. Why would they want to be integrated with their enemy?

You're right, the Turks are very much opposed to a Kurdistan.

They hate each other like prodestants and Catholics. Lots of bad blood going back centuries. Yet: "Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger". Besides, it is understandible that they don't want their homeland divided. They have gone through a lot of chaotic change recently.

BTW: Iraq was created after WW1; during Ottoman rule, the region was in fact divided into three provinces as you suggest.

Well I can't see them getting unless these rebels can be stamped out. That requires more troops.

Sadly so.

I'm so confused as to the Bush governments true motivations for this war that I have no idea what they want out of Iraq.

You are not alone...

[Aaron]

They hate each other like prodestants and Catholics. Lots of bad blood going back centuries. Yet: "Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger". Besides, it is understandible that they don't want their homeland divided. They have gone through a lot of chaotic change recently.

BTW: Iraq was created after WW1; during Ottoman rule, the region was in fact divided into three provinces as you suggest.

Yes it's my understanding that it was the British that created Iraq as it is today. Yet they managed to maintain order, I believe they used Native Auxilieries quite extensively.

You are not alone...

I'm sure that someone in the administration will right a book about the whole mess, about 20 years from now. Maybe we'll know the truth then.

[HyperionX]

Their reasoning is obvious: they're neoconservatives, meaning that they believe that it is their right to do this. Plus the fact that after the Gulf War they've being planning this all along, so it's something of a personal vendetta.

[Aaron]

Their reasoning is obvious: they're neoconservatives, meaning that they believe that it is their right to do this. Plus the fact that after the Gulf War they've being planning this all along, so it's something of a personal vendetta.

Well as much as I agree that Bush had planned to take Saddam down since being elected, your going to have to provide some evidence for your claims. Otherwise your just going to get flamed mercilessly.

[Lord Zentei]

Not to mention we were SUPPOSED to be going in there to stop the WMD's (proven absolutely false) stabilize the region (Once again bang up job there and bring freedom to the Iraqi people - save that now we may not even have an Iraqi people and they seem to be free to either die in a cross fire or lob RPG's at our boys. Altogether a most wretched experience.

Oh, now you are playing into the hands of the Bad Guys(TM), Stravo! We went in there to keep the world safe! ...er, Al Queda was plotting with Saddam...er, he might still have some WMDs hidden somewhere...er, he was acting mighty suspicious...er, he was a genocidal bastard...er, we want a democratic middle east...er, we can't simply abandon the Iraqi people to chaos.

Although the last three bits are true, particularly the last one, it doesn't excuse the drum beating bullshit prior to the war, nor the failure to adequately plan for the occupation. Hell, I usually find myself in the role of apologist for America amongst my friends, and even I was disturbed by how eager the administration was about going to war.

OTOH, even those world leaders who were opposed to the war suspected that there were some WMD facilities there, hence their support for the continuation of the sanctions and inspections. The UN Security Council simply couldn't up and drop the issue without the proof posetive Blix & co were demanding and not getting without having their credibility ruined (17 resolutions and then "ok then, just kidding? No way). Although I find the actions of Bush and Rummy to be perplexing I can't help but also wonder what the blazing fuck Saddam was thinking prior to the war.