10/4    I asked this question a month ago:
      8/25 ... if two-thirds of the voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces
           vote against it, the charter will be defeated [in the Oct 15
           referendum]"
           hey, is that two-thirds of people who actually vote, two-thirds
           of registered voters, or two-thirds of estimated legal voters?
           Here's the interim constitution:
           http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html
        Shiites and Kurds just voted on Sunday to change the rules from people
        who actually vote to "two-thirds of registered voters".
        "Given that fewer than 60 percent of registered Iraqis voted in the
        January elections, the chances that two-thirds will both show up at the
        polls and vote against the document in three provinces would appear to
        be close to nil."
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/international/middleeast/04iraq.html
        \_ I think I said that and I'll repeat it one more time.  This
           entire 'constitution' thing is for American and American only. It
           is no more than dubya's exit strategy.  Iraqis under half century
           of dictator rule has no concept of law, seperation of power,
           even basic right of citizens.  In the absent of an independent
           judicial branch and impartial law enforcer, this paper doesn't
           mean anything.   So, who cares if the constitution gets rejected
           or not?  it is not consequential.
           entire 'constitution' thing is for America and America only. It
           is no more than dubya's exit strategy.  Iraqis under a half century
           of dictator rule have no concept of law, seperation of powers,
           even the basic rights of citizens.  In the absence of an independent
           judicial branch and impartial law enforcement, this piece of paper
           doesn't mean anything.   So, who cares if the constitution gets
           rejected or not?  it is not consequential. [engrish corrected]
           \_ thanks
           \_ what do you think is the realistic best-case scenario?
                \_ (not pp) In the words of Dogbert "I think I can delay
                   cannibalism"
              \_ The 'best case scenario' I envision is having another
                 brutal dictator end up ruling Iraq.  Oppressive to its
                 people, but nevertheless be able to put down all insurgency
                 within Iraq border.  At the same time, this dictator
                 is friendly to USA/Europe and happily supply its oil to
                 Western powers... much like Saddam Hussin in the 1980s.
                 I am a left wing liberal and all, but I do have to point
                 out that there is one thing that is going our way which
                 we often overlooked.  That is, the disarray of Saudi
                 Kingdom right now is actually a benefit to our cause.
                 Traditionally, Saudi would never allow Shiite gain this
                 much influence this close to its border; and the way Saudi
                 counter Shiite influence was simply supply money and arms
                 to the Sunnis.  Can you imagine what kind of insurgent
                 we would encounter if Saudi pump money into this?
                                                -- happy Ramadan
                 \_ Gold plated AK-47s, the horror!
              \_ Mind control lasers finally kick in and the Iraqis all become
                 benevolant followers of Western-Style Democracy. Realistic
                 best case scenario is a slow withdrawl of US troops, with
                 Iraq split into three "states" controlled by the Kurds in the
                 north, Shiites in the south and a mixture in the center. The
                 oil-rich states will put in just enough money to keep the
                 center from falling into complete chaos. It'll be an ongoing
                 civil war, akin to parts of Afghanistan, with "neutalized"
                 sections in the central state cities. Extremist Islamists
                 will control some pockets within all three states, but not
                 enough to truly threaten the state governments.
                 \_ nice try.  you reall think Turkey is going to allow
                    Kurds in the north became a free state?  As soon as Kurds
                    declear independence, Turks would intervene...r
                    If I am the Turk leader, I will use this opportunity
                    to crush Kurds outside my border and sieze control of
                    northern Iraq's oil field at the same time.
                    \_ Who said free state? It'll still be Iraq. It'll be the
                       same as right before the invasion, but they will have
                       more money and control of the oil. They know they can't
                       get cocky with the Turks.
                       get cocky with the Turks and the Turks know they can't
                       get into the EU if they invade Iraq/Kurdistan.
                       \_ Just watch, Kurds in Iraq are going to help their
                          brothers across the border.  And who said that
                          Europe *WANTS* Turkey to join?  American would
                          love to use joining EU as leverage, but would
                          Europe happily accept Turkey per America's request
                          when American needs Europe more than other way
                          around?