US opposes Iraqi popular vote on troop withdrawal

[Hannah Bell]

An Iraqi national referendum on last year’s security pact with the US is currently scheduled to take place on July 30. According to Iraqi law, if voters reject the pact, which calls for the US to remove all troops by December 31, 2011, Washington would have to remove its military 17 months sooner—by July 30 of 2010. Should the vote be held as scheduled, it is a virtual certainty that the Iraqi masses will repudiate the pact.

Washington, of course, has no intention of obeying any popular referendum. Yet it wishes to avoid the political embarrassment of a broad repudiation of its occupation of the oil-rich country. “American diplomats are quietly lobbying the government not to hold the referendum,” the New York Times notes. The US has long justified its invasion and occupation of Iraq—which has resulted in the deaths of well over 1 million Iraqis and made refugees out of millions more—as a selfless exercise in building “democracy.”

A large majority of Iraq’s parliament approved the security pact, the Status of Forces Agreement, with the US last year, but attenuated it with additional legislation, including a measure that stipulated a national referendum be held on the agreement. The measure, what the Times calls a “little remarked upon, but potent poison pill,” was added as a means of appeasing massive popular hatred of the US occupation.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/iraq-j13.shtml

[Lasher]

1. When do Americans get to vote on that?

I would vote to withdraw all US soldiers and mercenaries yesterday.

[bobburgster]

4. I thought we DID vote on that

When we put Obama in office. Why is it that our Iraq policy seems utterly unchanged?

[Echo In Light]

6. Corporate America only offers up its version of "electable" candidates for us to "elect"

When enough people at long last muster the courage to dispense with fairytales, then and only then will you begin to see real change occur. It will NEVER occur via the voting booth, but passive, obedient suckers obviously prefer to cling to that illusion for fear of the alternative: responsibility

[bobburgster]

9. Ruining my rep!

Ugh! Again, my wife has written under my name....surely my minimal reputation is being sabotaged from within ;-)

She thought I should offer a disclaimer; that any post by me that seemed intellectually stimulating or thought provoking was accidentally written by her under my name.:argh:

[Michigander4Dean]

2. Gee, I wonder why?

[kenny blankenship]

10. That could be prejudicial to our ability to spread Freedom and Democracy all over them

and maybe their neighbors as well.

[drdtroit]

3. "Washington, of course, has no intention of obeying any popular referendum."

Yeah, to hell with what the people want, we brought them our form of democracy, not to be mistaken with a representative government!

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Recommend. If one clicks on the link , one finds this:

>>>Indeed, President Barack Obama’s decision to fight the court-ordered release of sealed photographic evidence of US military personnel torturing Iraqi prisoners was based in part on its potential impact on the referendum, should it be held.>>>>>

And a lot more food for thought along the same lines.

Despicable, reprehensible shit. The referendum is scheduled for July 30. Where's the media coverage? Where are the DEM antiwar senators speaking out to make sure the vote takes place?

And they call it "democracy".

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Kick nt

[mmonk]

8. Occupations seldom are concerned with the opinions of the

population of occupied territories in the field of imperialism.

[G_j]

11. the smell of Democracy in the morning

:think:

[Hannah Bell]

12. kik

for all the folks in solidarity w/ the iranians...

[Hannah Bell]

13. and another kik for all the freedom lovers

[Hannah Bell]

14. kicking for the freedom lovers once more.

freedom lovers, look, here's something else you can stand in solidarity with!

[Hannah Bell]

17. where are the freedom lovers? why do they stand in solidarity only against governments the us

doesn't like?

[Hannah Bell]

19. freedom lovers! yoo-hoo! over here!

[dana_b]

15. yeah, wow...

we still wouldn't want the Iraqis to really have a voice now would we? Oh no, it's much better if our govt. decides these things for them. If we let them do it, who knows? They might do something silly like kick us out, take back their govt., their businesses and their public works. Noooo.... much better if we stay under the guise of "bringing democracy" to them while installing our own businesses and interests there.

this makes me sick to my stomach.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Well, we sure wouldn't want those ignorant natives voting in their own country.

http://youngmammy.blogspot.com/

[leftofthedial]

18. I'm glad we "brought democracy" to their country

after we bombed the shit out of it.