since I created this topic, the insurgents have done a number on the interm Iraqi governmnet.

Attacks have claimed the lives of Baghdad's provincial governor; the security chief for Iraq's Independent Election Commission in Diyala province; the deputy director for the Iraqi Islamic Party in the northern city of Mosul; along with U.S. soldiers and scores of Iraqi police and civilians.

CNN

I do hope that the Iraqis will still go to the polls. A few car bombs at polling stations would go a long way to disrupting the elections.

Amen to that Doody. There has been so much bloodshed and sacrifice to bring them this far that I'd hate to see the terrorists succeed. This is the one chance that the Iraqis have to freely choose who their leaders will be and that scares the crap out of those who would rule by fear and violence.

it seems some important religious groups refuse to join the election...

anyone confirms that?

Confirmation on question that I found out at news.telegraph

A widespread boycott by Sunnis – who represent 30 per cent of the population – could lead to a government overwhelmingly dominated by Shi'ite muslim parties.

LINK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html

Cheers:
Doc.S

I think you should take a closer look at Egypt and Jordan before you make those kind of sweeping generalizations, Eurospike.

I heard Allawi and Washington proposed that elections be held over a period of one or two weeks, instead than a bare two days. This would give the Iraqis more time to go to the polls and also would make it impossible for one single big attack to ruin the whole process.

if those important religious groups dont join the election,
hell , this is not gonna work

i've said this to other boards, and i'll say it again.

invading Iraq took down one (imo) awful leader. the whole nature and background of that entire area dictates that teh leader has ultimate power, and is easily replaced. the power struggles mean little because A) After you assassinate one person, the rest of his group hates you and kills you, or somebody else sees an opening. and B) it wont matter much to anyone but you, you're a figurehead for the people, changing the name on the money is all that happens.

and the nature of fighting there hasn't changed much either, whatever it takes to bring your man to power; including wiping entire villages and schools of children to make a point.

i'm sorry if this post is racist or derogatory to anyone or everyone here, these are my views and i see them to be true.

Originally Posted by Porion

i'm sorry if this post is racist or derogatory to anyone or everyone here, these are my views and i see them to be true.

Porion if you ever make a racist or derogatory post here it will be deleted and you will be banned whether it's your opinion or not makes no difference.

Blame the brits and french. As far as i'm aware the country was made by Britain in the early 1900's....i think

Just to confirm that just found this:

Iraq was carved out of the old Ottoman Empire by direction of the UK government on January 10, 1919, and on November 11, 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".

At the end of the war, ownership of and access to Iraq's petroleum was split five ways: 23.75% each to the UK, France, The Netherlands and the USA, with the remaining 5% going to a private oil corporation headed by Calouste Gulbenkian. The Iraqi government got none of the nation's oil. This remained the situation until the revolution of 1958.

The British government laid out the institutional framework for Iraqi government and politics; the Iraqi political system suffered from a severe legitimacy crisis; Britain imposed a Hashemite monarchy, defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little correspondence to natural frontiers or traditional tribal and ethnic settlements, and influenced the writing of a constitution and the structure of parliament. The British also supported narrowly based groups -- such as the tribal shaykhs over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement, and resorted to military force when British interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army under General Sir Edward Quinan, combined with an attack by the British controlled Arab Legion based in Jordan. This led to a very rapid defeat for the Iraqi army in May 1941.

For anyone who didn't know.

And I don't really know what the outcome will be. I've lost interest in the Iraq "war" or "occupation" or whatever. No good news has come out of it IMO. Coalition needed a reason to test out new weapons or something? lol