Iraqi Elections
 

Let us, for now, put aside the fact that elections in Iraq will have even less chance of being fair than Florida.

Now: Assume thatan unconvicted Saddam Hussein wants to run as a presidential candidate. He would probably stand a good chance of being elected at the moment. Assume he gets elected.

What, exactly, does the US do if Saddam is elected in a *democratic* process?

Considering that most likely both the US and the provisional government would make sure he could not run, I don't think there is a problem.

If he is somehow elected democratically, then we'll say, "Mr. Hussain, congratulations on your victory. You are now the president of a truely democratic Iraq, and we will be watching you to make sure it stays that way."

I don't think it's a real possibility, because of how easy it would be to keep him off the ballot.

Do you really think the Iraqi people would vote for saddam? Why would he stand a good chance of being elected at the moment? because of the mass graves they've uncovered? because people are tired of not being raped beaten and tortured by saddam's sons and cronies? I really don't understand your logic. It seems absurd to me to belive that iraqis don't want freedom.

anyway. if he is elected then we should apologize to the rest of the world, immediately remove our troops from iraq and bush and anyone who agrees with him or supports him should be tried as a war criminal. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

What we are seeing is that people will willingly trade freedom for security. We're doing it right here in the U.S. Saddam may in fact be the devil incarnate, but it's possible that many Iraqis feel "secure" with him in power.

Also, how will it seem to Iraqis if the U.S. interferes with their election by dictating who and who may not run? I think it's fair to say that we are doing just that, but it's being done behind the scenes. If Saddam decided to run and we forbade it, the official elected would immediately be seen as a puppet. We're on shaky ground with some Iraqis as it is who believe that what we truly want is not freedom for them but for the U.S. to have control over their future. Our dictating who and who may not be their president would go a long way in reinforcing that view.

Aside from that, I don't believe Saddam will even be a consideration for a candidate.

I really can't answer that because all the variables are screwed. I mean, what if Saddam is convicted of war crimes? What if he's not? What if he escapes? There are so many things that can happen that the question can't be answered with a solid this or that, yes or no.

But wouldn't we be losing the purpose of the Iraq war again? Remember it was WMDs, then Saddam Hussein is a bad man who should not be in power of Iraq because he has the POTENTIAL to use nuclear (nukulur in W-speak), biological, and weapons of mass destruction. Why would we lie and contradict ourselves..AGAIN..if that happened? I'm positive the Bush white house has some sense in not to give a country over to someone whom they just took it over from.

How is it fair to say we are dictating who may and may not run? We just negotiated a deal with Sadr, whos militia is turning in weapons, and not just a few small weapons, lots and lots of machine guns, rocket launchers, morters, and the like. Do you know what we told him? That if he wants to run the country then join the democratic process. Thats what he's doing. He's going to get a political party together and try to get votes. We are not stopping him, and he's definately not a friend of the US.

Think everyone voted in the First US Elections? Women could not. Blacks could not. We had killed Indians near us. Think everyone from the country did? What about in Frontier times, think ballot boxes made it out to Western Towns? I think not. Voting is never perfect... Even in Afghanistan- they werent using the non-washable ink... but doing it to the best of their ability makes them winnars :thumbsup:

All the miscounts and voter fruad will get worked out in time, hell its been over 200 years here and we can't figure out how to punch out chads - or remembering to check Boxes to declare us Citizens ( ala Colorado- and i dont care if it was already confirmed in the affidavit above- if you cant fill out the whole forum, you dont vote!!)

Blacks and women couldn't vote for aLONG time in this country- so if 2/3rds of their country votes , and 1/3rd doesnt, wait 150 years and we'll checkback - i bet theyll be moving along faster than we did

I'm surpised, hes resposible for the death of hundreds of our soldiers- and we just "let" him join the process ? Hes a criminal, a murderer, killing our soldiers. I wouldnt be suprised if he gets assasinated by "insurgents" that happen to have our weapons

tehehe :thumbsup:

I agree that Saddam is a criminal, but the point you make about him being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers got me thinking. He was a leader (a tyrant, but still a leader) of a sovereign nation that was invaded twice by the United States during which American troops died. Does that make him a criminal for defending his nation? I don't mean to come off as too controversial here, but should a leader, of a defeated country, be punished for the deaths of soldiers his army killed while they were being invaded?

But I can definately see the last thing happening. Do you mean that it will happen if he gets elected?