Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Why Iraqis Should Boycott the Election

  1. Dec 4, 2004 #1
    An account that is moderate and commonsensically enough.

    Why Iraqis should boycott the election
    by Mohammed al-Obaidi
    Friday 03 December 2004

    Forty seven Iraqi political parties met on 17 November and made the decision to boycott the coming Iraq election. The People's Struggle Movement (al-Kifah al-Shabi), which I represent, was one of those groups.

    After carefully studying Iraq’s situation, considering the military occupation as well as economic and national interests, we felt there were enough reasons for any patriotic Iraqi to boycott the proposed January election.

    It is a violation of all international laws. International charters that regulate the relationship between occupier and occupied do not give occupying authorities the mandate to instigate a change in the country's social, economic and political structure.

    The planned election will change the political composition of Iraq to suit the interests of the occupation authorities. The change will also lead to ethnic, sectarian and religious divisions that the Iraqi state and people had succeeded to avoid.

    Historically, Iraqis have been able to coexist and the spectre of civil war did not loom until the country was stricken by the US-led occupation.

    Many Iraqi political activists believe the coming election results have been decided already. They also believe the electoral process will not be free and democratic but will be exclusively for those who maintain strong ties with the US occupation authorities. We feel that all steps have been taken to secure full US domination of decision makers in Iraq.

    A look at the electoral process and the composition of the current national council reveals that the election's main mission will be to install some of the country’s most notorious politicians who have constantly spoken proudly of their links to international intelligence agencies.

    The coming election will give power to every politician who has assisted the invaders and collaborated with them to consolidate the occupation. Therefore, we believe that even after the election, the decision-making process will be taken in the US embassy in Baghdad and the elected government will be no more than a vehicle to carry out Washington’s decisions.

    It is very difficult for any sensible person to believe that the US would give up its domination of Iraq after spending billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of its soldiers.

    We cannot believe that after all this the US will simply allow free and democratic election to take place in Iraq that could install a government which could make it its first priority to tell foreign troops to get out.

    We strongly believe that the main purpose of the election process is to secure a government that will facilitate long-lasting agreements with the US to keep its forces on Iraqi soil and transform the country into an American colony.

    The US administration works hard to portray the Iraq election as a political achievement to cover over the scar that the war has left on its credibility.

    Washington will use the election card to pull the wool over the eyes of the international community to prevent it from seeing the tragic consequences that the war has left on the Iraqi people.

    For all these reasons, many Iraqi political activists feel it is their national duty to boycott the 30 January election.

    [Professor Mohammed al-Obaidi is the spokesman for the People’s Struggle Movement (Al-Kifah Al-Sha’abi) in Iraq, and works as a University Professor in the UK. He was born and educated in al-Adhamiyah district in Baghdad. This article, was written exclusively for Aljazeera.net, and was translated from Arabic.]

    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D1C660D3-31C9-44C5-925F-4070AC17D606.htm [Broken]

    Reason of edit: To enable better focus on the arguments themselves.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2004 #2
    Al-Jazeera is moderate? that's like saying the American media is fair and balanced
  4. Dec 5, 2004 #3
    Umm, I've read that "opinion" piece and it's one sided, hardly moderate.
  5. Dec 5, 2004 #4
    :biggrin: Then we must lovingly agree to disagree. I honestly believe his reasoning is dispassionate and so natural that it almost goes without saying. Anyway.
  6. Dec 5, 2004 #5
    I lovingly... :wink: nevermind
  7. Dec 5, 2004 #6
    I think he makes one or two very good points I hadn't thought about before.
  8. Dec 5, 2004 #7
    Bush needs the election to take place this January so he can declare that Iraq is free and move on to the next nation that he will be taking over.
  9. Dec 5, 2004 #8
    I view it as home improvement. Fix’er up, move the happy homeowner back in, and on to the next project, Iran, NK, and France... Sorry Canada, we have to prioritize.

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2004
  10. Dec 5, 2004 #9
    I don't get it, why is france being picked on for disagreeing with the US, but everyone's just ignoring Germany, and Sweden, and even Canada. Am I missing a whole spectrum here?
  11. Dec 5, 2004 #10
    Here, there, and everywhere.

    France suffers under a corrupt, morally bankrupt leadership. Canada can’t be blamed for having to tolerate Quebec. Sweden and Germany are properly evolving.
  12. Dec 5, 2004 #11
    I think france was first to not approve of the war, but I'm not sure. Or was france the one who was going to veto because they were an ally with iran, or iraq? Either way france is somewhere up on the list. And I don't think Bush is going to ignore Germany, Sweeden, and Canada, he just has other countries that he needs to take care of first.
  13. Dec 5, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I was at least giving this guy the benefit of the doubt until this. It should be clear to anyone following the war that there are no scenarios in which the US maintains a permanent military occupation, or turns Iraq into a "colony." I can understand his thinking that the new regime is likely to be friendly to the US, but I cannot see why he would think alliance with the only superpower in the world is a bad thing.
  14. Dec 5, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I had some other problems with this - some parts are factually inaccurate, and others misleading at best. In particular:

    which is somewhat hard to swallow given all I remember hearing on the media about Kurds.


    neglects to mention that rule by iron fist may have had something to do with the lack of civil war.

    One important thing that seems to be missing is, ironically, is an exit plan. Suppose they succeed in undermining the work to create a new Iraqi government... then what?
  15. Dec 5, 2004 #14
    If you can make a good argument for that statement and defend other european nations as well as your own against the same accusations I would love to hear it (i'm being serious)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook