THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

What if they do? What if....what if....what if......the what if's are endless. If we focus on the what if's, we never get to what is. What if pigs can fly?

Shove down their throats?

What if the Iraqis think all those who think they don't want all those freedoms are a bunch of dumb asses, or worse, a bunch of nazis?

If say only a million Iraqis risk their lives by voting 1/30/05, I will be convinced those million want to decide for themselves what they want and don't want. Let us continue to help secure their development of their constitution. If their constitution delegates tyrannical powers to a head of state, then at least they had a chance to decide that for themselves without some blueneck clucks from the US shoving that down their throats.

I'm willing to bet they want a genuine, constitutional representative democracy with limited governmental powers. I've got a hundred and fifty bucks here (i.e., two hours of personal flying) that I am willing to bet even-money that that is exactly what they want! Any takers?

"We shall see, my little chickadee."

Perhaps if those in administration who were so determined to invade iraq and did so; did a little "what ifs" we wouldn't have quite as much negative things happening in Iraq now.

revel has it right; this administration doesn't know how to "what if?," so we're now in the pickle we are today. What little "what if's" they did was worthless, because they ignored all the expert advise, and fired those who disagreed with them.

Ah yes, my little chickadee. On lunch break one day, W.C. Fields went to his dressing room to start on a new bottle of whiskey he had saved for that purpose. Apparently someone beat him to it, as the bottle had been opened and about half of it had been drunk. Fields immediately ran outside and roared to the crew, "Who took the cork out of my lunch?"

Free and fair election in Iraq?
Guess again.
*****************************

U.S. Is Haunted by Initial Plan For Iraq Voting
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Published: January 9, 2005



WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - In its struggle to transfer sovereignty back to Iraq last spring, the Bush administration made some tough decisions about the makeup of the political system and how Iraqi elections could occur quickly and fairly. But now a little-noticed decision on election procedures has come back to haunt administration officials, just weeks before the vote is to take place, administration and United Nations officials say.

The fundamental decision set up one nationwide vote for a new national assembly, rather than elections by districts and provinces. With a violent insurgency spreading through the Sunni Arab areas of the country, it now looks as if fewer Sunnis will vote, distorting the balance of the legislature and casting doubt on whether the election will be seen as legitimate.

According to officials planning the election, the decision was driven by the realities of an unstable Iraq and the unrelenting pressure to speed the country to a vote by the end of January 2005, as demanded by many Iraqis. To make that deadline, it was believed, there was no time to conduct a census or go through the politically divisive chore of drawing district lines.

A national constituency also made it easier to meet the demands of the former exiles installed in power in Baghdad to let millions of Iraqis living outside the country vote, and the demands of others to ensure that 25 percent of the legislators were women. The experts reasoned that it would be much easier to find women for slates running nationwide than for each of many smaller districts.

"We looked at a lot of alternatives and presented them to the Iraqis and everyone else," said an official involved in the decision-making process. "Basically, a nationwide constituency solved a lot of problems and made our lives a lot easier."

But now, with the violent insurgency and more than 7,000 candidates, many in alliances with other candidates, running for 275 seats nationwide, the disadvantages of the current system are becoming all too apparent, according to American, Iraqi and United Nations officials.

For one thing, these officials say, there is no possibility of postponing the election selectively in those districts gripped by the insurgency. For another, the expected low turnout in perhaps a fifth of the country, where the Sunni minority lives, will presumably lessen the chances of candidates who are popular there.

This problem is discouraging Sunnis from running or campaigning, and a failure of these candidates to win proportionate to their share of Iraq's population, could easily reinforce the Sunnis' alienation from the Shiite majority.

Thus an election intended to bring Iraq together and quell the insurgency could produce the opposite outcome, in part because of the way it has been organized.

In a speech last week at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute in Washington, Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser of President George H. W. Bush and an increasingly vocal critic of the war, warned of the danger of the election worsening the conflict. "The Iraqi elections, rather than turning out to be a promising turning point, have the great potential for deepening the conflict," he said.

The problem of underrepresentation of Sunnis in a future legislature has already stirred talk among Americans, Iraqis and United Nations officials of making adjustments after the voting. Among the ideas being discussed are simply adding seats to the 275-member legislature, or guaranteeing that the future government or constitution-writing committees have a fixed percentage of Sunni representatives.

The decision to set up the election this way was made by L. Paul Bremer III late in his tenure as the American administrator in Iraq. His aides say the decision was urged on him by United Nations experts who argued that there was no other way to ensure elections quickly.

The decision was discussed in Washington, but it is not clear whether it was formally approved at the White House.

It was, I think, a couple of days ago in another thread that you presented what I think was an excellent analysis of the difficulties associated with proving or providing persuasive evidence that pigs can or cannot fly.

I recommend you post that same analysis in this thread. I think it quite pertinent (as well as enjoyable) here as well. The parallel here is that some participants cannot distinguish the difference between pompous pontifical pronouncements and evidence, and therefore cannot weigh pro and con evidence to decide which is the more likely to be the better of two alternatives.

The better of two alternatives being not to attack Iraq, and finish the job of catching/killing Osama.

I recommend you read the book, "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks to get a more objective view of the what-ifing that went on in the Bush adinistration prior to both the Afganistan and Iraq invasions.

I recommend you read the book, "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks to get a more objective view of the what-ifing that went on in the Bush adinistration prior to both the Afganistan and Iraq invasions.

Tommy Franks is a devout (like in religious) Bush supporter.

What if

Osama is long gone to paradise?

"Our intelligence" tells us that the radio messages being sent are those of Osama.

AH HA! Now I've finally got it! We must ignore devout (like in religious) Bush supporters and listen only to devout (like in religous) Bush whackers! And, since these Bush whackers all seem to agree that Bush only planned to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but did not plan how to democratize these countries, then Bush is no damn good.

OK! Now that that is settled, what's the devout Bush whacker's plan for saving the US from the Republicans? What's the Democrat's plan for saving us all from the rednecks?

Oh, Oh! What if the devout Bush whackers are really the ones who are no damn good?

xtra xtra read all about it .... Ican admits he's no damn good!

Ican sez

What if "Our intelligence" is wrong again?


What if it's only the bluenecks in the news media that are telling "us the radio messages being sent are those of Osama?"

What if Ican is wrong and Ican isn't no damn good?

Yeah, so? What if Osama is dead or alive? What if our intelligence is right or wrong?

Ican writes


I submit nobody who questions the adminsitrative's motives, soul searching, planning, strategy, or what-ifing and who reads it with an open mind will feel the same amount of jugdmentalism about it all once they have read Franks' book.