It's a extension of this thread, but I needed a poll.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31438

Let's see the choices:

- Shi'a Theocracy: successfully implamented in Iran for the last 25 years. pros- stability, conformity, low crime, increased living standards. cons- women's rights, human rights, quasi-democracy, ayatollahistic leader. anti-west (support group-Shi'a 60% of the populous)

-Communist Party- with 83 years of pseduo-communist experiance worldwide, communism has never been achieved. But it would be nice to give it a try in Iraq. One former "communist" state in the ME, S. Yemen. Pros- stability, reform, growth social, and economic. Cons- no real democracy, the rest is up to the Iraqi communists. (Kurds, and Sunni 40%)

- Bath'ist- Sure our leader has been caputred, but we have many in the wings to take his place. Defended Iraq's honor in the Iran-Iraq war, put Iraq on the map, developed the most technologically advanced military in the arab world. Pros- Strong, stable, and reliable, cons- autocratic, un-weildy, and anti-american. (support group 20%)

Three parties that actually have a fighting chance to win...cast your fake Iraqi ballot today!


edit: thread is not to be replied to, all I want is the votes. Also if there is a reply, please delete it. To mods, or posters.

None of the above. How about the secular majority of which Iraq is largely made up of and the current GC composed of.

stupid poll.

It's probably already been discussed here, but what about the Hashemite claim to the throne? The country was peaceful for years under Hashemite rule. Maybe the Iraqi's would respect the historical significance of a return to a monarchy. It's the only system that has a track record of peace in that region, unless you count a murderous despot.

Would have added it, but it's just no going to happen. Unless the US imposed it on the Iraqis.

Since you are imploring that the moderators delete any responses to your thread ( a request that was edited after I responded) I'm certain that no one will question why you missed such an obvious option. And unless you are Colin Powell on a message board, you can't say for sure what has been ruled out at this point. Have a nice night.

I didn't miss it, I know it's just not a real option. No Iraqi wants a British imposed, non-Iraqi monarch ruling them. That dynasty is from mecca, it's not from Iraq proper. Look to Afghanistan my dear.

Always imploring the moderators to delete, always dismissing others as irrelevant, and lastly resorting to name calling when someone paints you into a corner. Why delete? What are you scared of? Let this thread go where it will. I have thrown out a fourth option for the Iraqi's. Why are you trying to shut down a thread that you created? If I didn't know better, I would think maybe you are worried that someone might have insight that had previously escaped you.

The Heshamite question is totally legitimate to debate. Let's leave it up to the board to decide what the options are.

Stupid poll. Nico, check the date on your meds.

When you vote in a general election (actually vote) do you scream and bitch? No...do you vote for a party u know will lose? No, if you don't want to vote...HURRAH! but just shut up about it, no one asked for your opinion.



Jerrek Stupid poll. Nico, check the date on your meds.


That means a lot coming from you Jerrek...:rolleyes:

And I responded.

So, don't know much about the Heshamites I guess...?

I ask for a vote... not a opinion, learn how to read.

So, don't know much about the Heshamites I guess...?

Not only them, not only them. This is makes me angry, ppl spew garbage that they know nothing about and expect to be taken seriously. :rolleyes:

So I guess you knew that the Iraqi Constitution of 1925 is still in place.

Funny, the last poll you posted had many responses and not one complaint from you. Just another confirmation of my doubts about your abilities to hide your immaturity.

Who do I want in power in iraq? Some Iraqi agnostic (I'm sure you can find a few) who has few real aspirations except keeping the country quiet and happy for the next few years and then retiring to play golf.

(sigh) another poll that gives me no good choice. Sorta like voting in 2004. As to Iraq's new govt, I nominate George W Bush with his entire cabinet, minus Secret Service and any other US forces. I doubt a lasting unified Iraq govt is possible in the near term:(

Funny, the last poll you posted had many responses and not one complaint from you. Just another confirmation of my doubts about your abilities to hide your immaturity.

BECAUSE I SAID PPL COULD POST OPINIONS! WHAT DON"T YOU UNDERSTAND? ALSO I DID THOSE THREE, TO SHOW WHAT IRAQI'S REALLY HAVE TO VOTE FOR...IF YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT, TALK TO YOUR PILLOW.

I vote this stupid poll be closed.

I vote we change the poll to "who do you want to be in charge of France".

Just exactly what is the purpose of asking a question and then raising hell when the answers don't fit your expectations?

It would be accurate, no?

Thats why you can post replies to say what you really think and hound the poster to his grave.

Who do you want to be in powder in a rock?

Obviously none of understand the FACT that these three are the only 3 that can win. I want you to experiance what a Iraqi experiances. Just that these ppl can't seem to understand that the world doesn't revolve around them, and their expectations. I can't wait until that election, if you thought this was bad, fasten your fucking seats baby!

Stupidest poll ever.

Just for some debate by analogy:

A poll for republicans: What's your favorite pastime?

A) Killing babies
B) Eating dead babies
C) Picking dead babies from your teeth with baby bones

You set up a question that requires an opinion then presented three strict choices that don't encompass all possible choices. Geez, would it be so hard to add a "other" choice.

The second stupidest thing you did was mixed and matched political philosophies and parties as choices. Theocracy is certainly a philosophy and not any particular party, communism could be considered a philosophy or a party, and the Baathists are definately a party and not a philosophy.

He's been screaming his head off to delete this poll, maybe the mods will do us all a favor and delete the thread. You're right. Useless, ill-construced poll.

I still would like to talk about the Hashemites if anyone is interested.

The second stupidest thing you did was mixed and matched political philosophies and parties as choices. Theocracy is certainly a philosophy and not any particular party, communism could be considered a philosophy or a party, and the Baathists are definately a party and not a philosophy.

*Barf*= your analysis...

*Barf*= your analysis...

Ohh man.. you sure got me. My analysis = *barf*, that's pretty insightful.

I'm devestated, inconsolable, distraught; I'm not sure how I'll ever be able to show my face after the complete logical dissection of my position. Nico, will you please spare my reputation and honor in front of fellow board members by not making me look so silly.

Why can't you just admit that this is perhaps the dumbest poll question in sciforums history? You know you could just say, ya guys I screwed this one up, I should have had added another option.

Instead you defend an untenable position, exposing your complete contempt for any semblance of logic. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more from you; I already knew you had the worst grasp of basic economic principles that I've ever observed. (see the WalMart workers underpaid thread)

I guess you probably won't understand those preceding well constructed sentences so I'll place the argument in a form you might understand:

*poopie* = your rebuttal

"Obviously none of understand the FACT that these three are the only 3 that can win"

My understanding of FACT is that Iraq will come apart long before any of these three potential ruling factions can take power. Sadly, I expect that the pressures will be too great for any federal coalition government I can imagine to hold it together. Iraq is mortally wounded, but let's hope for a miracle.

SOMEONE with a brain finally talks...indeed the situation in Iraq could fall apart before the elections. Especially when the Shi'a theocrats seem to be on the verge of wining. Hype there is only one viable solution to the Iraqi quagmire, that is to split the country up. The US will eventually have to live with a Shi'a theocracy in one way or another, it would be in the US' best interest to have the theocracy confined to a smaller part of the ME. But the threat is that the theocratic are going to have a border with S.A. that will cause revolutionary pressures on the Kingdom. I personally don't see another Iran-Iraq conflict coming out of this to stop the tide. It's only a eventuality the question is when, and how? Meanwhile we have these repressors squabbling over the truly irrelevancy that is who gets on the short list for voting. Typical cry baby conservatives. What ticks me off is that they don't even have to vote, if they find the thread stupid. All the power to you, but fuck off when it comes to what I want on MY thread.

It's a sad subject to think about. I'm all for a pluralistic Iraq, but that's just fantasy with the jockeying for power that is just beginning. There are more internal and external pressures involved here than there than in 1970's Lebanon. Partition is not going to be pretty, and the likelihood of a legitimate multinational force is not great. It's a catastrophe.

It really is, but to give Saddam credit is that he kept the thing together. That's what happens when you create states out of imperialistic map making. Not a good sceniro, and not a good outcome. I predict millions dead, and cities scorned. I think cities to watch are Mosul in the north, alas Sarajevo in Bosnia. Surrounded by Kurds, this largely arab sunni sity, no wonder they wanted Saddam back there. Baghdad fireworks will surely happen with the largely Shi'a population (larger then the Sunni) in Saddam city, and the powerful and relatively wealthy sunni arabs in the city as well. The question I pose is how powerful can these groups be? Will they have air power? Will they have armour? Or will this be a pure guerilla war?

I think it should be a communist democracy(which is what I voted for, your description of what you meant by it wasn't up at the time), but the fact is, none of these three have a chance of actually taking power anytime in the near future. If there was an open election, you'd be right, and in fact i'd say communist and baathist could pretty much be ruled out too and say it would almost certainly be a theocracy.
Given how things are in reality however, there will be a choice between a few carefully screened pro-western leaders, none of whome will fit into any of these categories, and the winner will be kept in place by mass propaganda campaigns and a constant US military presence.

:D

I voted the communist, I think they are the only one left that the US can actually deal with. I mean look at China, that is the "communism" we are going to see in Iraq. Reformed, to capitalistic socialism. I think that the Bath'ists have served their time as holders of Sunni pride. Also i don't want to see a theocracy, eventhough it is the inevitable winner. :(

Nico I'm not going to bore you with this been a stupid poll or what not, no. However I didn't vote for any.

The US is trying to set up its puppet government, which ever suits the US best is the clear winner, anything else will be called a distortion of voting process. Hell Bush did it here in the US what makes any one think they can't do it over there.

So who is going to be in charge?

The one that kissess most ass, that's who. Is it not that what Saddam did with the US to get into power?. No difference, just a different dood, a different year, bla,bla.

Godless.

I say put Sharon in charge to make a real unity out of fragmented Iraq, you wouldn't believe how quickly all those factions would put aside their difference of opinions

And yes Nico , the assembled hyenas are finally having their field day now that the lion has posted a rather stupid poll in a weak moment...:p :D :)

But on a serious note... how will the US re-act to the inevitable win or the Shi'a majority? I know Tehran will be peeing the bed, with joy. Will the US need Depends?

It depends:D .. the way we are setting the pendulum swinging wildly, Iran may become an asset regarding America's better mideast intentions. It's a crazy world.

How exaxctly? Because it can sway a Shi'a Iraq... but that's even assuming that the Iraqi elections will be fair. :confused: That's what I call crazy!

Iraq has already swayed Shi'a. Nextdoor in Iran, the Ayatollahs aren't as fashionable as b4, and moderates are upwardly mobile, which is a very welcome thing in my view. Amazing what a few years of self-determination can do.

But alas, Iraq is not likely to be as cohesive as Iran, no matter what happens from here forward.

Funny thought What about putting the Kurds in charge of Iraq???

They are outcast considered by both sjiites and sunnites and turkey alike, exactly why they are most fit for the job???, because they have to be twice as good and responsible, unbiased and tolerant to be accepted....

But I don't see it happening anytime soon:bugeye:


Someone plz split up that country in 3 ways:
- the south to iran
- the center to syria
- the north to the kurds (the turks won't let, ok hell even give the north to turkey, let them show they can be better hosts for the kurds than saddam and receive entry ticket to european community as a reward)

Someone plz split up that country in 3 ways:


Makes sense....

- the south to iran


Major problems here, yes the Shi'a in Iraq have that religious bond to the Iranians, but Iranians are not considered Arab. Shi'a in Iraq is nonetheless Arab. Second thing is that Iran doesn't have a historical claim on that land. No country in the region...let alone the world would want to see Iran border Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and receive huge amounts of Iraqi oil, and cut the rest off to the Persian Gulf.

- the center to syria


More logical compared to the Iran suggestion, but does Syria really want it? Would Israel want that to happen? Syria has enough problems at home as it is. Surely the US would not even think about it. They don't want too powerful a Sunni state.

- the north to the kurds (the turks won't let, ok hell even give the north to turkey, let them show they can be better hosts for the kurds than saddam and receive entry ticket to european community as a reward)

I don't think you understand what it would mean to the region to give the Kurds, their deserved independence:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/images/kurdistan-map-ed.gif

This is what you are suggesting...

http://www.kurdistan.no/1006542005/1006542005.jpg

This is what you might get.

vote for me and receive a baggie and some munchies

spookz for ayatollah