"Yes to elections" "No to occupation" 100,000 Iraqis Protest in Baghdad

[Patroklos]

Sooner than later is your time frame, so basically anything not now or sooner sits bad with you. I said a year and then you ran with it.


But it gets better...

Ramo quote,

There was and there still is no reason that a census can't be done other than American incompetence/malevolence.

Later Ramo quote,

And I never opposed doing a census

Awesome

What Ramo quoted,

x will not happen within a year

What I actually said,

Did any of you actually think there would have been an election within the year?

Granted I should have inserted "fair and accutrate" after election, though it is an obvious inference. In rational company it is anyways.

This is fun Ramo, what contridiction/quote butcher do you have next?

[Ramo]

Sooner than later is your time frame, so basically anything not now or sooner sits bad with you.

So you're making more things up, I see... I never said I wanted an election right now. And I never said "sooner than later."

Awesome

Where exactly is the "contradiction?"

What Ramo quoted

I didn't quote, I was demonstrating a grammatical point.

The point again is that within the year implies before December 31, 2004. Within a year implies before January 20, 2005. You switched between a and the so I ignored that difference since it's only 20 days. It does not imply before an arbitrary date like a year after the invasion of Iraq.

Granted I should have inserted "fair and accutrate" after election, though it is an obvious inference. In rational company it is anyways.

No. Elections are rarely "fair." That's a rediculous inference.

And once again, the feudal system we have planned is not "fair and accurate." So it is not what I want, but it is what Shrub is trying to implement. Hence my discontent. Thus, the original point you were making is horseshit.

[Ramo]

I'd really like for you to explain this statement. Given all your contradictions:

"Did any of you actually think there would have been an election within the year? Do any of you realize how hard it is to run an election that meets international standards? If Bush had allowed an election off the bat all of you would still be here complaining, only that they were impartial and useless because the proper prep work had not been conducted to make sure they were fair and representative"

[Nubclear]

This just goes to show that Saddam Hussein still has his cronies in power

[DanS]

I'm happy to see some pressure on the US for a vote. It's the kind of problem you want to have. Just imagine if nobody wanted a vote! I doubt the Sunnis are in any hurry!

I think that the US wants to wait some in order for the Iraqi economy to start doing better and for a lot of people to move back to Iraq from the West. Neither of these will happen in sufficient degree between now and June.

[GePap]

The US chose June because their previous plan was unpopular-then they make a june plan, and now that is unpopular, and again, they move to shift it: so much for the determination of the Bush admin. in the face of danger.....(I mean danger they can't bomb into submission, that is)

I wonder if they will have backbone when it come to demands by kurds for great autonomy, inlcuing keeping thier own guerrillas.

[DanS]

That's probably what set off these calls for elections. The Kurds made a fuss about autonomy, then the US/GC said they'll enshrine this in the law that accompanies the handover. Of course, this wasn't discussed fully with the Shiites. So these protests are the Shiite way of asserting its right as the majority.

You also had the Turks b&m about this.

Overall, I'm thinking Bush & co. are doing a fine job on this. It's bound to be a little messy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
That's probably what set off these calls for elections. The Kurds made a fuss about autonomy, then the US/GC said they'll enshrine this in the law that accompanies the handover. Of course, this wasn't discussed fully with the Shiites. So these protests are the Shiite way of asserting its right as the majority.

You also had the Turks b&m about this.

Overall, I'm thinking Bush & co. are doing a fine job on this. It's bound to be a little messy.

At first, there would be no turnover until a constitution was drawn up- but this plan saw too much resistance, so the amdin. decided to empose upon itself this artificial limit, and now the p-lan they drew up to make it work is coming into problems, so they are scrambling again: yeah, its going marvelously.

As for the Kurds, the issue of Kirkuk looms, and the US has not done anything to fix it, and I don't thnk we might be able to without angering the Kurds enough so they start making waves.

[DanS]

yeah, its going marvelously

Whoever thought it would go marvelously? Rather, I think it's going fine. It is getting full attention by Bush and co.

[Ramo]

I've heard an interesting solution with regards to the Kurds: create a bicameral legislature in the American mold (i.e. one chamber that assigns mp's to provinces dependent upon population, and the other chamber that assigns a fixed number of mp's to each province). That way the Kurds might moderate in their demands for autonomy and there'd be more of an incentive for them to have a greater number of provinces, so it wouldn't be in their interests to integrate Kiruk into one big Kurdish province. It also might reduce the worries of the Sunnis who fear Shia domination of the new state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And that's why democratic elections right now would be a mistake. We still haven't worked out stuff like the Kurdish problem yet. We need a few more months to help settle down things and work out others.

[Lefty Scaevola]

""Yes to elections" "No to occupation" 100,000 Iraqis Protest in Baghdad "
Well darn!, I was exxpecting millions of them to protest the other way. "Foreign troops stay! No ballots for Us!"

[Ned]

One of the problem of holding elections prior to a census is that there is no (reliable?) way of apportioning the population into roughly equal voting blocks for each elected representative.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
One of the problem of holding elections prior to a census is that there is no (reliable?) way of apportioning the population into roughly equal voting blocks for each elected representative.

We did our first election to start Congress and electic than President without doing than census.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And that's why democratic elections right now would be a mistake. We still haven't worked out stuff like the Kurdish problem yet. We need a few more months to help settle down things and work out others.

Luckily the Kurds have worked it out largely for themsselves, they have a functioning govt up north and apart from Kirkuk they are sorted.

The US needs to tell Turkey to keep its nose out and thats about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Luckily the Kurds have worked it out largely for themsselves, they have a functioning govt up north and apart from Kirkuk they are sorted.

The US needs to tell Turkey to keep its nose out and thats about it.

If only it were that simple . And what the Kurds want may be different than what the rest of Iraq wants.

[Ramo]

And that's why democratic elections right now would be a mistake. We still haven't worked out stuff like the Kurdish problem yet. We need a few more months to help settle down things and work out others.

We have to work out the Kurdish problem before having any elections, whether they're feudal or democratic.

[TheStinger]

The kurds will be happy if they are left to tehmselves in a federal Iraq. They will kick off big style if arabs(sunni or Shia) get to have a sya in their govt. They could declare independence form Iraq proper and the Iraqis couldn't do a thing about it. Turkey and Iran may have other ideas though

[Ramo]

That'd be a pretty suicidal thing for the Kurds to do. I don't think they're that desperate yet.