Longtime US foe takes surprise early lead in Iraq elections

[txradioguy]

A coalition led by a firebrand Shiite cleric whose militia killed hundreds of Americans in the Iraq War emerged as the early front-runner Monday with half the vote counted in Iraq's national election.

Partial returns from Saturday's balloting — the first since Iraq declared victory over the Islamic State militant group — were announced by the country's electoral commission and put Muqtada al-Sadr's political alliance in the lead in four provinces, including Baghdad.

If the results hold, al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood and southern Iraq, could be in a position to determine Iraq’s next leader. Al-Sadr has repeatedly called for the complete withdrawal of all American troops from Iraqi soil.

Al-Sadr is a nationalist opposed to all foreign influence, including both U.S. and Iranian. He campaigned on a platform that criticized Iraq’s current political leadership as deeply corrupt.

Al-Sadr did not run for election but commands a coalition, known as Sairoon, which won by a large margin in Baghdad, which accounts for the largest number of seats in Iraq’s 329-member parliament that in turn selects the prime minister. A ticket led by the commander of a Shiite militia close to Iran came in second, according to preliminary results release Sunday night.

Al-Abadi’s coalition, which was Washington’s favorite and had been expected to win, was running fifth in Baghdad and third nationwide in the preliminary returns.

Al-Sadr’s surprise early lead raises the prospect of Iraq’s government being headed by someone both hostile to the United States and opposed to Iran’s spreading influence in the country. Al-Sadr has recently campaigned against corruption and can summon millions into the streets to protest policies he opposes.

https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/longtime-us-foe-takes-surprise-early-lead-in-iraq-elections-1.526710

[txradioguy]

We should have taken this idiot out when we had the chance.

[Frank Cannon]

We should have taken this idiot out when we had the chance.

We should have stayed the eff out of it when we had the chance.

[edpc]

We should have taken this idiot out when we had the chance.

Bremmer, Wolfowitz and Co. wanted to bring him in to be part of the political solution, despite his open hostility, formation of the Mahdi army, and refuge in Iran.  Hope they're happy, now.

[Fishrrman]

Frank Cannon wrote:
"We should have stayed the eff out of it when we had the chance."

You be right about that, Frank.
What a waste of our blood, treasure and time.

I saw that coming back about late 2003/early 2004 or so, in a singular event.
The new (post Saddam) Iraqi government convened (under USA occupation), and what was one of the first things they did?
Why, heck... they wrote islam into their new "constitution" as the state religion.

At that moment, I knew that all of our efforts there... would come to... nothing.
And that's when I started asking the question (first at TOS, later here).... "who's winning?"

It certainly wasn't -us-.

"Meet the new boss...
... Same as the old boss."

[DB]

Frank Cannon wrote:
"We should have stayed the eff out of it when we had the chance."

You be right about that, Frank.
What a waste of our blood, treasure and time.

I saw that coming back about late 2003/early 2004 or so, in a singular event.
The new (post Saddam) Iraqi government convened (under USA occupation), and what was one of the first things they did?
Why, heck... they wrote islam into their new "constitution" as the state religion.

At that moment, I knew that all of our efforts there... would come to... nothing.
And that's when I started asking the question (first at TOS, later here).... "who's winning?"

It certainly wasn't -us-.

"Meet the new boss...
... Same as the old boss."

And we had every right to tell them no. And we didn't...

[TomSea]

Sadr in the current era:



Nowadays, he's sometimes seen as a moderate source:

Powerful Iraqi Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Calls For Assad to Step Down Following Chemical Attack
http://www.newsweek.com/powerful-iraqi-shiite-cleric-moqtada-al-sadr-calls-assad-chemical-attack-581610

But-but-but, as said in the other thread, almost all of those people despise the state of Israel, they just happen to be fighting each other.

[TomSea]

Excerpt:

A Firebrand Paramilitary-Leader

...

How did we get here and what does this mean for the future of Iraq? Can it be that Sadr, once the bête noire of American interests in Iraq, may actually be a force for good? This is a question that few, if any, would have countenanced until recently, and for a number of reasons. Among these are Sadr’s short-lived attempt to take over Iraq by force and impose an Islamic theocracy shortly following the invasion in 2003. During this period, he established the Mehdi Army (jaysh al-mehdi), which became the largest Shia militia and fought to disrupt the post-2003 U.S.-led state-building project. His militiamen seized control of public buildings and police stations, administered death squads that murdered Sunnis through torture, notably with electric drills, and kidnapped local residents and foreigners. Individuals affiliated with his movement assassinated senior leaders like Shia cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei in April 2003. Sadr’s willingness to travel the path of political violence led many commentators to conclude that Sadr is a “thug” or firebrand cleric and as such is not good for Iraq. His militias were involved in some of the worst sectarian excesses of the bloody civil war between 2006 and 2008. Today, many Iraqi commentators remain wary of Sadr’s political ideology, which is fiery, anti-Western, anti-secular, and rooted in political Islam.

https://warontherocks.com/2016/05/is-muqtada-al-sadr-good-for-iraq/

[txradioguy]

Frank Cannon wrote:
"We should have stayed the eff out of it when we had the chance."

You be right about that, Frank.
What a waste of our blood, treasure and time.

I saw that coming back about late 2003/early 2004 or so, in a singular event.
The new (post Saddam) Iraqi government convened (under USA occupation), and what was one of the first things they did?
Why, heck... they wrote islam into their new "constitution" as the state religion.

At that moment, I knew that all of our efforts there... would come to... nothing.
And that's when I started asking the question (first at TOS, later here).... "who's winning?"

It certainly wasn't -us-.

"Meet the new boss...
... Same as the old boss."

Real easy for both of you to say when neither one of you ever set foot in the country and saw what was going on.

Armchair Generals disgust me.

[txradioguy]

And we had every right to tell them no. And we didn't...

Yeah never mind the fact they were harboring known terrorists and Al Qaeda had a camp set up in the country.

Yeah should have just said no and let them do their thing right? 

[DB]

Yeah never mind the fact they were harboring known terrorists and Al Qaeda had a camp set up in the country.

Yeah should have just said no and let them do their thing right? 

I was commenting on allowing Islam to be the basis of their constitution and saying no to it. We earned the right to tell them no, it won't be part of it.

[txradioguy]

I was commenting on allowing Islam to be the basis of their constitution and saying no to it. We earned the right to tell them no, it won't be part of it.

@DB ok I see what you're saying now.  And you're right.  It shouldn't have been ANY part of their Constitution.

[RoosGirl]

I didn't read the article, only the title.  Is it Hillary?

[edpc]

I didn't read the article, only the title.  Is it Hillary?

Nope, al-Sadr was able to eke out a win through collusion with Iran.

[RoosGirl]

Nope, al-Sadr was able to eke out a win through collusion with Iran.

 

[Fishrrman]

Txradio wrote:
"Real easy for both of you to say when neither one of you ever set foot in the country and saw what was going on.
Armchair Generals disgust me."

I stand by what I said, and I don't care where you've been.

As I wrote above, I originally thought that going into Iraq (remember G.W. Bush saying, "I flew that plane!" ??) was a good thing. To clean out al queda, of course it was.

But things "went to the bad" quickly.
Reread my reply 4 again.
We should have straightened those Iraqis out quickly when they wrote islam into their constitution. Ended that nonsense right then and there.

Once we let that stand, it was all over.
It wasn't going to matter HOW long we stayed there, as soon as we left, things would begin to gravitate (by the force of "islamic gravity") right back to pretty much where they used to be.

As is happening also in Afghanistan right now.

We should have gone in, cleaned the place out, and left.
Would have accomplished as much as staying has.
And again, at far less cost in blood and treasure.

[DCPatriot]

We should have stayed the eff out of it when we had the chance.

Exactly!

Those photos of 'liberated' Iraqis voting with purple dyed fingers?   

They're dead, Jim!

And their children and grandchildren won't back an unreliable ally every again.

[TomSea]

A lot of propaganda goes around, so I can't be certain as to what is true....but some sources say Saddam killed as many as 180,000 Kurds, so that would be genocide, if so... I think we should step in when genocide happens and we should have stepped in, in Rwanda. We should step in unless, the other country is just very powerful, say a China or a Russia.... then, there are other ways to pressure them, sanctions.... BUT.... I won't lose sight that we didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was killing people, we went in because they were not allowing inspectors in regarding WMDs.

Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million, including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

[TomSea]

Txradio wrote:
"Real easy for both of you to say when neither one of you ever set foot in the country and saw what was going on.
Armchair Generals disgust me."

I stand by what I said, and I don't care where you've been.

As I wrote above, I originally thought that going into Iraq (remember G.W. Bush saying, "I flew that plane!" ??) was a good thing. To clean out al queda, of course it was.

But things "went to the bad" quickly.
Reread my reply 4 again.
We should have straightened those Iraqis out quickly when they wrote islam into their constitution. Ended that nonsense right then and there.

Once we let that stand, it was all over.
It wasn't going to matter HOW long we stayed there, as soon as we left, things would begin to gravitate (by the force of "islamic gravity") right back to pretty much where they used to be.

As is happening also in Afghanistan right now.

We should have gone in, cleaned the place out, and left.
Would have accomplished as much as staying has.
And again, at far less cost in blood and treasure.

@Fishrrman  has served his duty for our nation, he is welcome to his view here.

Let's all be very respectful of each other and our discussions can be enlightening.

@txradioguy  does have a lot of experience that at least, in the 2 years I have been here, has not related that much information about.

All are welcome in the World News Forum, some faces, we never see over here, some, just a little bit of. I appreciate all input.

[TomSea]

I know some parents who lost their son in Iraq, glad we've been straightened out that they shouldn't be able to have an opinion on such.

This is a discussion forum; pretty ironic really.

[txradioguy]

Txradio wrote:
"Real easy for both of you to say when neither one of you ever set foot in the country and saw what was going on.
Armchair Generals disgust me."

I stand by what I said, and I don't care where you've been.

As I wrote above, I originally thought that going into Iraq (remember G.W. Bush saying, "I flew that plane!" ??) was a good thing. To clean out al queda, of course it was.

But things "went to the bad" quickly.
Reread my reply 4 again.
We should have straightened those Iraqis out quickly when they wrote islam into their constitution. Ended that nonsense right then and there.

Once we let that stand, it was all over.
It wasn't going to matter HOW long we stayed there, as soon as we left, things would begin to gravitate (by the force of "islamic gravity") right back to pretty much where they used to be.

As is happening also in Afghanistan right now.

We should have gone in, cleaned the place out, and left.
Would have accomplished as much as staying has.
And again, at far less cost in blood and treasure.

Like I said real easy to say that when you weren't on the ground.

I stand by what I said about your bullshit*t analysis of Iraq.

I lost friends and team mates over there just like I did in Afghanistan.

I've had to clean out and box up the sleeping area of someone who won't come back.

I've had to face family members of soldiers who died while undery charge at the funeral for their son.

Bush did the right thing going into both places. He had shit under control. Obama was the one that came along and gave us the current unstable situation we have in BOTH countries.

So don't sit there and tonorerend that you know better than someone who was on the ground what we should and should. It have done.

You're no better than some hippiewar protestor taking a giant steaming dump on you and your buddies you fought with in Vietnam when you so smugly downgrade the wars I was in.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy  does have a lot of experience that at least, in the 2 years I have been here, has not related that much information about. 

@TomSea it's not something you talk a lot about until someone starts running their mouth.

It's very unusual to see someone who has served be so willing to put down the efforts of those that took up service when it was time for them to take a knee.