NationStates Jolt Archive

Somebody could perceive it as a joke, but its not a joke in fact!
Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti is going to candidate in the next elections. And most shocking news is everything is in accordance with the law. According to the latest Gallup's polls, 42% of the Iraqis want their former leader back.
Well having a criminal record and leading a country is not unique, we had Bush and of course Hitler aso.


Quote:
Saddam to Declare Candidacy for Iraqi Elections


Overthrown Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who was arrested by US forces last December, reportedly plans to run as a candidate in the Iraqi elections scheduled for January 2005.

Saddam's lawyer Giovanni di Stefano told Denmark's B.T. newspaper that Saddam decided during one of their discussions that he would declare his candidacy for the elections.

Stefano said that there was no law that prevented Saddam from appearing on the ballot. He added that Saddam hopes to regain his presidency and palaces via the democratic process.

Contrary to the statements of Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, Stefano claims, "Saddam has no chance to be tried before the elections. Moreover, no international law prevents him from coming forward."

Saddam's lawyer defends that the ambiguity in Iraq will favor Saddam at the polls. Stefano remarked that a recent Gallup poll indicates that 42 percent of the Iraqi people want their former leader back.

Meanwhile, evaluating the conditions of Saddam in jail, Allawi said that Saddam had asked him for mercy.

http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040921&hn=12424

It would be supremely ironic if he ran and won and Bush lost. Then we would get a Gulf War III once Jeb Bush is president.

But I doubt very much if he would be allowed to run. I don't think the Iraqi elections are going to be a free for all, and even (slightly) less controversial figures such as Al-Sadr probably will not be allowed to run either.

I don't think the Kurds care who is in charge in Baghdad. They want their own state. Democracy for Iraq will also mean the end of Iraqi unity.

Allow me to say


Dude, 42 ****ing percent?

Irrelevant. Saddam is there were he belongs: in prison.
So, he can´t run.
The trial needs to take place soon. That is going to reveal the character of its regime - even to the coalition of the unwilling.
Saddam Hussein deserves to be hang - and I say that although I´m not a supporter of the death penalty.
But he committed genocide and mass murder. This man can and won´t be allowed to return to poltics.
And it is the US and the UK who will make shure - together with the Iraqi democrats - that this won´t happen.

Irrelevant. Saddam is there were he belongs: in prison.
So, he can´t run.
The trial needs to take place soon. That is going to reveal the character of its regime - even to the coalition of the unwilling.
Saddam Hussein deserves to be hang - and I say that although I´m not a supporter of the death penalty.
But he committed genocide and mass murder. This man can and won´t be allowed to return to poltics.
And it is the US and the UK who will make shure - together with the Iraqi democrats - that this won´t happen.

Actually, according to the law, he has every right to, since his trial will not have begun by January. So says the article, anyway.

Actually, according to the law, he has every right to, since his trial will not have begun by January. So says the article, anyway.
Laws can be changed. I´m unaware of any country that allows prisoners to run for any office. That is just ridiculous and outrageous. A real provocation.
He won´t run - he will be hanged.

Laws can be changed. I´m unaware of any country that allows prisoners to run for any office. That is just ridiculous and outrageous. A real provocation.
He won´t run - he will be hanged.

Well, apparently Iraq is a country that allows prisoners to run for office. And as long as the law currently allows him to, why shouldn't he?

And he won't be hanged. We've progressed as a civilization in the past couple hundred years.

That's going on the assumption that Iraq will hold elections in january--or ever for that matter. I get the feeling that the elections will be "postponed for security reasons" and will continue to be postponed while Allawi or some other Hussein type strengthens their hold on the country. We'll have changed nothing in the long run.

Hey, haven't "we" already re-armed half of his former army? :D

Well, apparently Iraq is a country that allows prisoners to run for office. And as long as the law currently allows him to, why shouldn't he?
First of all: Iraq used to be an one-party state where Saddam always got "elected" with 99% (-they were no other candidates and open balloting).
So, obviously Iraq needs to pass elections laws before it holds its first democratic elections. Such laws don´t exist but they must be written anyway. And that should include rules that makes sense for candidates to apply.

Secondly: if Saddam had at least the slightest degree of honour he would have killed himself like Hitler. But he didn´t even have the guts to do that - this cowered.
By doing so he would have a better record than he has today. He will go in the history books as a cowered who surrendered and let himself being captured by the US. His record is already ruined by this. And with this cowardness he is causing even more problems for his country than he has already done.

First of all: Iraq used to be an one-party state where Saddam always got "elected" with 99% (-they were no other candidates and open balloting).
So, obviously Iraq needs to pass elections laws before it holds its first democratic elections. Such laws don´t exist but they must be written anyway. And that should include rules that makes sense for candidates to apply.

Secondly: if Saddam had at least the slightest degree of honour he would have killed himself like Hitler. But he didn´t even have the guts to do that - this cowered.
By doing so he would have a better record than he has today. He will go in the history books as a cowered who surrendered and let himself being captured by the US. His record is already ruined by this. And with this cowardness he is causing even more problems for his country than he has already done.
And now he will go down in the history books as a person who took a stand for what he believed in and fought for his version of the Iraqi people until his last dying breath.

First of all: Iraq used to be an one-party state where Saddam always got "elected" with 99% (-they were no other candidates and open balloting).
So, obviously Iraq needs to pass elections laws before it holds its first democratic elections. Such laws don´t exist but they must be written anyway. And that should include rules that makes sense for candidates to apply.

Don't patronize me. I know what the situation in Iraq was like.

Secondly: if Saddam had at least the slightest degree of honour he would have killed himself like Hitler. But he didn´t even have the guts to do that - this cowered.
By doing so he would have a better record than he has today. He will go in the history books as a cowered who surrendered and let himself being captured by the US. His record is already ruined by this. And with this cowardness he is causing even more problems for his country than he has already done.

So committing suicide is an honorable death? That's an excellent message to spread.

Well, apparently Iraq is a country that allows prisoners to run for office. And as long as the law currently allows him to, why shouldn't he?

This I can agree with. I remember reading about an election where a socialist, yes a socialist in America, ran for President from prison and got 900,000 votes. Also an expelled congressman who was sent to prison also ran for his former seat and lost.

And he won't be hanged. We've progressed as a civilization in the past couple hundred years.

And I guess you don't know Islamic Law. What he did does actually deserve death under the Koran.

That's going on the assumption that Iraq will hold elections in january--or ever for that matter. I get the feeling that the elections will be "postponed for security reasons" and will continue to be postponed while Allawi or some other Hussein type strengthens their hold on the country. We'll have changed nothing in the long run.

Allawi has said that they would hold the Elections in January. I do believe that they will take place because if they do postpone them, then that is a sign to the terrorists that they are winning because they know that if Iraq holds its elections, that'll be the end of them.

That's going on the assumption that Iraq will hold elections in january--or ever for that matter. I get the feeling that the elections will be "postponed for security reasons" and will continue to be postponed while Allawi or some other Hussein type strengthens their hold on the country. We'll have changed nothing in the long run.
Allawi is a good man. Iraq needs order. The Iraqi people want security and stability. Without that there never be a democracy.
So a more thougher approach is needed.
It would not be good to postpone the elections though. If they can´t be hold in all provinces than be it that way. Postponing them would make things worse. After that Iraq needs a period of consolidation.
The second elections may be in a better atmosphere.
It is naive to assume that Iraq all of a sudden turns into a Jeffersonian democracy. Algeria could be an example for Iraq. Over there the military takes care that the islamists don´t take over. And they had success. Today Algeria is more free and does have elections because the Algerian military stopped the insurgency. Also Turkey could be a good example for the new Iraq.

That is for shure better than Saddam in power.

Allawi is a good man. Iraq needs order. The Iraqi people want security and stability. Without that there never be a democracy.
So a more thougher approach is needed.
It would not be good to postpone the elections though. If they can´t be hold in all provinces than be it that way. Postponing them would make things worse. After that Iraq needs a period of consolidation.
The second elections may be in a better atmosphere.
It is naive to assume that Iraq all of a sudden turns into a Jeffersonian democracy. Algeria could be an example for Iraq. Over there the military takes care that the islamists don´t take over. And they had success. Today Algeria is more free and does have elections because the Algerian military stopped the insurgency. Also Turkey could be a good example for the new Iraq.

That is for shure better than Saddam in power.
Security and stability in the hands of a madman. Sounds like Saddam to me. Who could give more stability then him.

42%

they just want him back for execution :gundge: :mp5: :sniper:

Allawi has said that they would hold the Elections in January. I do believe that they will take place because if they do postpone them, then that is a sign to the terrorists that they are winning because they know that if Iraq holds its elections, that'll be the end of them.Let me fill you in on something there, sport. The insurgents are winning. That's not even a secret here, much less there. Any elections held in January will be a farce unless there's a massive turnaround between now and then.

So committing suicide is an honorable death? That's an excellent message to spread.
When I would be in the position of chosing - either I die immidiately and out of free will or being captured and hanged I would chose the first option.
Don´t manipulate my statement. I spoke of personal suicide.
Not about killing others via suicide bombings. That is entirely a different things.
That is just murderer.

Let me fill you in on something there, sport. The insurgents are winning.

Dude if they are winning, then why are the elections still on for January? Can you answer me that?

That's not even a secret here, much less there. Any elections held in January will be a farce unless there's a massive turnaround between now and then.

Actualy, I don't believe it will be a farce. The only ones that would consider it a farce are those that opposed us from the beginning! That being the Liberal Left of the Democratic Party, France, Germany, and Russia, and other nations that have opposed us from the start.

First of all, let me say that giving Democracy to the Iraqis is like giving a Ferrari to an Orangutang. What are they going to do with it? Nothing. However, Saddam Hussein did kill his own people--a.k.a. terrorism, and this is why he got taken out of power by people who are capable of doing this for the Iraqi people (the USA). I could only assume Saddam Hussein would have ran for president until i actually saw it in print. I don't think that he will be allowed to win, however. Unless Syrians throw the election.

Security and stability in the hands of a madman. Sounds like Saddam to me. Who could give more stability then him.
Comparing Allawi to Saddam is unaceptable.
Stability and rule of law must come together. That is what Allawi stands for - who is shiite by the way like the majority of the Iraqi. And the president is a sunni. So, the new Iraqi leadership includes the main factions of the country. In difference to Saddam who had to bloodily repress the shiites and Kurds to stay in power.

Dude if they are winning, then why are the elections still on for January? Can you answer me that?

Actualy, I don't believe it will be a farce. The only ones that would consider it a farce are those that opposed us from the beginning! That being the Liberal Left of the Democratic Party, France, Germany, and Russia, and other nations that have opposed us from the start.
They're talking tough. The UN, which is supposed to oversee the elections, can't get in there to set anything up because the place is such a fucking disaster area. The US can't guarantee the safety of their own people, much less UN election people. There is no stability there, and without stability, there can be no fair election. Period. End of story.

You want to point fingers at people to blame, start with your fucking President--that's right, yours, because I refuse to claim him anymore--and with his entire Department of Defense who has so completely screwed this pooch that it'll never walk straight again.

Don't get me wrong; I don't want Saddam Hussein to be President of Iraq either. But why should we go about changing the laws of Iraq just because they might yield a result we don't like?

And now he will go down in the history books as a person who took a stand for what he believed in and fought for his version of the Iraqi people until his last dying breath.
That is nonsense. He has lost in April 2003 already when his statue was torn down.
Actually I listened to author who partly lived in Iraq. The capture of Saddam - though it got much attention at the west - didn´t get much attention in Iraq. The overwhelming majority justs sees him as irrelevant. And they are right with that. It is over. The Baath regime is gone and it won´t return back.
Though due to the difficult security situation many people wish the security back - but not the old regime. Those things should not be misplaced.
There is the threat of a new dictatorship in Iraq. However that would be an islamists dictatorship and not a baathist one. They are history.

When I would be in the position of chosing - either I die immidiately and out of free will or being captured and hanged I would chose the first option.
Don´t manipulate my statement. I spoke of personal suicide.
Not about killing others via suicide bombings. That is entirely a different things.
That is just murderer.

I've never heard of suicide (not bombing) as anything but the most cowardly death. That's not my opinion, but I'm surprised someone else thinks... somewhat similarly.

Ah, so many pessimists abound. Such is the danger of collective thinking. I think that if we thought about it on the radical change for the Iraqi individual, then we see it in a different light. Whether it is better or worse is up to you, but I find it to be a paradigm shift. Anyhow, now that Hussein is gone, and Iraq is an open and connected society, no matter what happens, Iraq (or the countries formerly Iraq) will all be liberal democracies in no more than twenty years. Democracy, the free markets, and the rule of law have swept over the world like a tidal wave since the fall of the USSR. Now that Hussein is gone, and the country can be connected, only an act of the devil himself can stop the eventual liberalization of the country.

Don't get me wrong; I don't want Saddam Hussein to be President of Iraq either. But why should we go about changing the laws of Iraq just because they might yield a result we don't like?
Because Iraq doesn´t have election laws anyway. Those need to be written actually. So,the fact that they are no laws doesn´t mean that everything is allowed. Voters need to register, candidates must supply - and must prove at least some support otherwise the ballot may get to long if to many a running.
And I don´t see it as justified that a murderer or even an accused murderer could run for office. That is a principal position. After all that would give him immunity.
I don´t take this seriously. It is just nonsense - like the conspiracy theories of Milosevic.
It is a waste of time and space to discuss this issue.
It won´t happen, and it is good that way. PERIOD.

After all: Iraq has banned the Baath party (De-Baathification)- so it is logic that its leader can´t run.
So, I´m very shure you find also a legal construction which would ban him from running.

Ah, so many pessimists abound. Such is the danger of collective thinking. I think that if we thought about it on the radical change for the Iraqi individual, then we see it in a different light. Whether it is better or worse is up to you, but I find it to be a paradigm shift. Anyhow, now that Hussein is gone, and Iraq is an open and connected society, no matter what happens, Iraq (or the countries formerly Iraq) will all be liberal democracies in no more than twenty years. Democracy, the free markets, and the rule of law have swept over the world like a tidal wave since the fall of the USSR. Now that Hussein is gone, and the country can be connected, only an act of the devil himself can stop the eventual liberalization of the country.
Iraq is not yet an open and connected society. History has shown that more often than not,t he removal of one tyrant only leads to the installation of another, and it's quite possible that's where we are headed. Your optimism is laudable, perhaps, but it is literally based on nothing right now.

I've never heard of suicide (not bombing) as anything but the most cowardly death. That's not my opinion, but I'm surprised someone else thinks... somewhat similarly.
I think that is a cultural question. In Japan suicide can be honourable if it is done out of honour.
In other cultures that is the case as well.
Just think about the issue of euthanasia (Netherlands)-which is in some way also a form of suicide. So, obviously this concept is also not completly strange to western societies. Take a look outside the United States. There are other concepts and cultures out there.
And suicide is a different thing than suicide bombings. A murder is a murderer because he kills another person not himself.

I've never heard of suicide (not bombing) as anything but the most cowardly death. That's not my opinion, but I'm surprised someone else thinks... somewhat similarly.

Hari Kari I beleived was considered to be an honorable way to die but I could be wrong.

I don't see how suicide could be considered cowardly. I think its very brave to take your own life. Not knowing if you will exist afterwards or not.

I don't see how suicide could be considered cowardly. I think its very brave to take your own life. Not knowing if you will exist afterwards or not.
I may add something. The peole in the WTC who knew that they would die and who jumped out of the windows were no cowards. They had to chose either to burn to death or to jump to death (during the flight people loose conscience anyway). So - in that situation it is completly understandable that people made that choice.

Of course the situation of Saddam can´t be in any way compared.
But he knew that if he gets arrested he is going to be hanged.
So: he had to chose - kill himself and never get captured (probably arranging the destruction of his remainings in order never to be "found") or to get captured like a normal criminal, put to trial and hanged.
Now - what is the worser position in the eyes of history? The latter. And he chose the latter because he was so cowared that he didn´t have the guts to take the first option.

Hari Kari I beleived was considered to be an honorable way to die but I could be wrong.

I don't see how suicide could be considered cowardly. I think its very brave to take your own life. Not knowing if you will exist afterwards or not.
But the traditional Japanese and the Islamic extremists doesn't apply to that situation. They know exactly where they will be after they commit suicide. The Islamic terrorist is confident that he will be sleeping with a few dozen virgins in heaven and the Japanese thought that their souls will continue to live in Japan.

They're talking tough. The UN, which is supposed to oversee the elections, can't get in there to set anything up because the place is such a fucking disaster area. The US can't guarantee the safety of their own people, much less UN election people. There is no stability there, and without stability, there can be no fair election. Period. End of story.

Unfortunately for you, I know more about what is going on over there than what you are getting through the news media. I had relatives that were over there with one going back soon. Who do you think I'm going to believe? Those that are over there and serving and know more about what is going on, or our own news media? I know who I believe! Do You?

You want to point fingers at people to blame, start with your fucking President--

*Gasps* and yet another liberal cussing. So much for part of your arguement.

that's right, yours, because I refuse to claim him anymore--

Your choice dude but if your an American Citizen, he is your president and hopefully will be again for another 4 years.

and with his entire Department of Defense who has so completely screwed this pooch that it'll never walk straight again.

Shows how much you actually know. Carter screwed over the military and we recovered. Clinton Screwed over the military and we recovered. Both of those are Democrats who decided to slice the military. There was no Pay raises for the military during Clinton but under Bush, we got a nice one! So do you care to rephrase that? Defense has been screwed before and it recovered and if it gets screwed again, it will recover from that too.

Now - what is the worser position in the eyes of history? The latter. And he chose the latter because he was so cowared that he didn´t have the guts to take the first option.

Sorry, didn't read the bulk of it. But just saw the "in the eyes of history"-thing. If the first post bears any credibility, and Mr. Hussein in fact can be eligible in the election, wouldn't the fact he either got the votes - or not - in the "elections" speak volumes (in the eyes of history)? The idea sounds interesting. I'm somewhat doubtful if there is going to be any elections january. Mr. Rumsfeld says it's ok to go even if 25% of the country can't vote, Mr. Armitage of the foreign ministry says that's nonsense. As always... the Iraqi people gets the short straw.

But the traditional Japanese and the Islamic extremists doesn't apply to that situation. They know exactly where they will be after they commit suicide. The Islamic terrorist is confident that he will be sleeping with a few dozen virgins in heaven and the Japanese thought that their souls will continue to live in Japan.
Nobody can know for shure what happends after his death. It is a question of faith. You may believe in an after-life. That however means that you have to face Gods judgement. Either you go to hell or heaven. Nobody can know for shure. People may believe that they are right, but that is not the point. Actually islamic, jewish and christian religion all condem suicide.
So, they actually don´t know for shure.
If you don´t believe in an after-life there is even less of a reason to be worried.
At the end of the day all of us are fascing death. So, we all face one day this end.
A soldier who fights is also aware - especially in the most dangerous missions that he very likely is going to die. But the believe that the cause is just - for whatever reasons - helps to get over the natural fear to take over control - at least mostly.
I know that those examples can´t be completly compared. In the one case it is to risk the life and in the other to kill yourself - and killing others.
But in the case of special operations the situation is more comparable - or to the battle of Stalingrad - or the Japanese bombers.

I don´t think we can make it that easy to say - well, people kill themself and kill others because they believe they meet 72 virgins or whatever.

And again: suicide is not the same thing as murder - which means to kill another person/s. Suicide bombings are clearly murderer. The aim is primarily not to kill oneself but to kill others. The suicide is in that context a "colleteral damage".
How long a society can survive such a cynical strategy is an open question. The Tamil tinger in Sri Lanka also used that tactic by the way. Since the 80s and partly up till now (and they aren´t even Muslims -nor Japanese).

Sorry, didn't read the bulk of it. But just saw the "in the eyes of history"-thing. If the first post bears any credibility, and Mr. Hussein in fact can be eligible in the election, wouldn't the fact he either got the votes - or not - in the "elections" speak volumes (in the eyes of history)? The idea sounds interesting. I'm somewhat doubtful if there is going to be any elections january. Mr. Rumsfeld says it's ok to go even if 25% of the country can't vote, Mr. Armitage of the foreign ministry says that's nonsense. As always... the Iraqi people gets the short straw.
It would tell a lot about a minority in Iraq. There were also some post-Nazi parties which got in the 50s 11% in one local election. The government asked the supreme court to ban it - which was done in 1953 - the next party which was banned where the Communists in 1956 due to the links to East Berlin (and Moscow). I know that Finland suffered under the Soviet influence: that was used to be called Finlandisation. You were forced to conduct an appeasement policy towards them due to your position. Whether that is possible again if Russia falls back into its old authoritarian ways is an open question. East Germany also has a (post)communists party which reaches up till 20% of the votes.
Regarding the US: I think that Mr. Rumsfeld has still much more influence in the administration than Mr. Armitage. So, I would rather go for Mr. Rumsfeld. He is certainly going to remain his posts if Bush gets his second term which seems to be most likely.
I don´t think that everybody should be allowed to run. Tolerance is good but not towards the intolerant. that is my principal position. No tolerance for Nazis, for Islamists or any other extremists. A defensive democracy must defend itself actively against such elements. A party ban of such parties is completly justified as a last resort. And therefore I think it to be justified that when the Baath party is banned - like the Nazi party is banned in Germany - it is clear that the leader of this party - Mr. Hussein - can´t run for office of course.

I say let them vote. If Hussein gets the majority of the votes then he is the true and democratically elected president of Iraq. There is nobody who has a right to forbid the Iraqis to vote for him, if they so chose. Democracy - but only as long as it is convenient? Kybernetia, I see you are spewing your old propaganda again... maybe you should think what democracy is about - the will of the people. Not the will of Allawi, Bush, Kybernetia or whoever else. Iraqis should have the choice to vote for Hussein or not. Allawi has just as much legitimacy to be a candidate as Hussein. Allawi was installed by the US - he will mostlikely get the presidency and rule in favour of the US - all the time. His crawling before the US senate to beg for attention already showed how weak he is. He'd be shot in Iraq in an instant, if not for his bodyguards. Hussein might be shot in an instant too, thus him or Allawi, it makes little difference. Dictating the Iraqis who they may vote for or who they maynot vote for, is defiance of democracy and hypocrisy.

Yeah Kybernetia... the only safe suicide demonstrators are the Buddhists. They only set themselfs to fire.

Iraq is not yet an open and connected society. History has shown that more often than not,t he removal of one tyrant only leads to the installation of another, and it's quite possible that's where we are headed. Your optimism is laudable, perhaps, but it is literally based on nothing right now.
To be honest, we can never measure how open or connected any society is. For example, Hussein banned sattelite TV dishes. Now they are flourishing. All that I am really saying is that even if another strongman gets into power, he won't run the toltalitarian state Hussein commanded, because by now, it is impossible. Technology was once a favorite tool of a toltalitarian regime, but now, it has turned against it. Especially with the rise of the internet.

LOL I heard about the whole Saddam-candidate thing

Ok. All abovesaid besides Kybernetia... what if there is an election in which only 75% can vote (if that). Who will that serve? Will the result of that kind of an election appease the country?

42% ?
Man, his approval rate is dropping... I mean, he got 100% in the last elections.

Oh how the mighty have fallen...

Only 99% Tumaniia. Only 99. :D

A party ban of such parties is completly justified as a last resort. And therefore I think it to be justified that when the Baath party is banned - like the Nazi party is banned in Germany - it is clear that the leader of this party - Mr. Hussein - can´t run for office of course.

Only if he runs as the official Ba'ath party candidate. He can always resign from the Ba'ath party and stand as an independent. Admittedly, campaigning might be tricky, but unless there is a specific law banning him in some way I don't see how they can stop him. I suppose they could ban people from running if they are in prison. Technically he hasn't yet been found guilty of anything, but they could always expand the definition to include people on remand.

The US foreign ministry and Mr. Armitage are cautious just because there aren't any parties in Iraq. I'm not sure if there is Ba'ath party remaining as you stated Jeldred.
Edit: The election model they use was hoped to serve well in multi-ethnical and -religious country. It works fine as shit if there is no parties. The electoral committee members can hardly move from their homes. Again... I can hardly wait.

Well there is no need for Allawi to run anyway. He's installed by the US, has no legitimation to run (or not more than Hussein at least), he's hated throughout the country and will be killed as soon as the US troops leave (if they leave anytime soon). The US troops may leave now or later, it will not make much difference. Iraq cannot be transformed into a democracy out of nowhere and most importantly not out of the chaos of this war of aggression.

Allawi shouldn't be an issue. If there is free elections, the people will elect whomever they want to rule them.

The US foreign ministry and Mr. Armitage are cautious just because there aren't any parties in Iraq. I'm not sure if there is Ba'ath party remaining as you stated Jeldred.
Edit: The election model they use was hoped to serve well in multi-ethnical and -religious country. It works fine as shit if there is no parties. The electoral committee members can hardly move from their homes. Again... I can hardly wait.

No, I don't think so either, since a Ba'ath party card would probably be a one-way ticket to Abu Ghraib. But the banning of a political party does not stop ex-members of that party from standing for election.

I strongly suspect that the Iraqi elections, even if they manage to go ahead across the country, will be largely farcical and will do little to convince ordinary Iraqis of the merits of democracy. A democratic Iraq would probably decide to disband the whole nation and go their separate ways, Kurd, Sunni and Shi'ite, but there's no way the US will allow that to happen.

No, I don't think so either, since a Ba'ath party card would probably be a one-way ticket to Abu Ghraib. But the banning of a political party does not stop ex-members of that party from standing for election.

I strongly suspect that the Iraqi elections, even if they manage to go ahead across the country, will be largely farcical and will do little to convince ordinary Iraqis of the merits of democracy. A democratic Iraq would probably decide to disband the whole nation and go their separate ways, Kurd, Sunni and Shi'ite, but there's no way the US will allow that to happen.
That's why I think it is too early for national elections. What needs to happen first is a firm rule of law, a market economy, and elections at a local level. But national elections go too far too fast. I'd rather see a strong but liberal leader, rather than a democratically elected, yet autocratic leader. That's been the case with a lot of leaders recently, like Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez.

Unfortunately for you, I know more about what is going on over there than what you are getting through the news media. I had relatives that were over there with one going back soon. Who do you think I'm going to believe? Those that are over there and serving and know more about what is going on, or our own news media? I know who I believe! Do You?I believe my eyes, and I see from multiple sources--US and elsewhere--that the situation is beyond bad. You don't want to believe it? Fine. But don't act like you've got some inside scoop that the rest of the world is somehow missing.

*Gasps* and yet another liberal cussing. So much for part of your arguement.If you really think that my dropping of an occasional f-bomb somehow negates the logic of my argument, you're a fool, plain and simple. Get over yourself, kid.

Your choice dude but if your an American Citizen, he is your president and hopefully will be again for another 4 years.I refuse to recognize his legitimacy. I am currently, in my opinion, a man without a President, and he somehow manages to pull the greatest con in US politics and get back into office, I will remain a man without a President for the next four years.

Shows how much you actually know. Carter screwed over the military and we recovered. Clinton Screwed over the military and we recovered. Both of those are Democrats who decided to slice the military. There was no Pay raises for the military during Clinton but under Bush, we got a nice one! So do you care to rephrase that? Defense has been screwed before and it recovered and if it gets screwed again, it will recover from that too.
You completely misread what I wrote. Bush and the DoD--while doing plenty of damage to the US military--have screwed the Iraq pooch so badly that it'll likely never walk straight again. That's the real tragedy here--well, aside from your willful ignorance.

I believe my eyes, and I see from multiple sources--US and elsewhere--that the situation is beyond bad. You don't want to believe it? Fine. But don't act like you've got some inside scoop that the rest of the world is somehow missing.

Do these people serve in Baghdad? Do these people see what is going on at ground level? Do these people see what the average Iraqi is seeing? Are you seeing schools getting rebuilt and reopened? Are you seeing hospitals come online? Are you seeing new police officers, including women, patrolling the beat? I'm sure glad I don't follow your sources because from my POV, Iraq is slowly, yes slowly, getting better.

If you really think that my dropping of an occasional f-bomb somehow negates the logic of my argument, you're a fool, plain and simple. Get over yourself, kid.

I actually 21 yo and in college. Swearing in a debate does nothing for your points. I'm surprised you did not learn that in school.

I refuse to recognize his legitimacy. I am currently, in my opinion, a man without a President, and he somehow manages to pull the greatest con in US politics and get back into office, I will remain a man without a President for the next four years.

He was legitamently elected. I can pull out the US Supreme Court ruling that would shut you up permenantly regarding how the Supreme Court "stole" the election. Did you know that they actually had Two cases? One they threw back telling them that they couldn't do what they are doing, that being changing recount procedures in the midst of a recount, and the 2nd one where they found what the Florida SUPREME COURT was doing Unconstitutional ACCORDING to FLORIDA STATE LAW! I can pull that out for you if you like.

You completely misread what I wrote. Bush and the DoD--while doing plenty of damage to the US military--have screwed the Iraq pooch so badly that it'll likely never walk straight again. That's the real tragedy here--well, aside from your willful ignorance.

And just how did they do damage to the US Military? We got a pay raise which is something we DID NOT get under Clinton. The military actually started getting better under Bush. If you think what I said is ignorant, then I find what your saying to be Democrat Talking Points. I know what state our military was in Under Clinton and under Bush 41. I do know that things for the military are better under Bush 43, not perfect but better. Have you ever served a day in the military? If not, then you have no room to talk. Most of my family has served in the military so I've grown up around it. I've been on Military Bases, I know what the military personel are saying. They know that it is now better under Bush, it isn't perfect and it'll never be perfect, but it is better than it used to be.

Do these people serve in Baghdad? Do these people see what is going on at ground level? Do these people see what the average Iraqi is seeing? Are you seeing schools getting rebuilt and reopened? Are you seeing hospitals come online? Are you seeing new police officers, including women, patrolling the beat? I'm sure glad I don't follow your sources because from my POV, Iraq is slowly, yes slowly, getting better.I see casualty numbers growing by leaps and bounds, both of US soldiers and of Iraqi civilians. I see explosions and destruction daily. I see reports that notes that electricity and water service is back below pre-war standards. I read reports about instability even in Baghdad around the Green Zone. I read statements from Marine Generals who were on the ground who said it's FUBAR and it's getting worse, so yes, I believe my sources.
I actually 21 yo and in college. Swearing in a debate does nothing for your points. I'm surprised you did not learn that in school.I taught college composition and rhetoric for four years while in grad school. I'm not writing a (watch it--f-bomb coming) fucking essay here. I'm arguing with a snot-nosed kid who thinks he knows how the world works. F-bombs are more than appropriate--they're necessary. Can't handle them? Put me on ignore. I won't lose any sleep over it.

He was legitamently elected. I can pull out the US Supreme Court ruling that would shut you up permenantly regarding how the Supreme Court "stole" the election. Did you know that they actually had Two cases? One they threw back telling them that they couldn't do what they are doing, that being changing recount procedures in the midst of a recount, and the 2nd one where they found what the Florida SUPREME COURT was doing Unconstitutional ACCORDING to FLORIDA STATE LAW! I can pull that out for you if you like.All of which means jack fuck-all to me. (And you really don't want to argue the illegitimacy of Bush v Gore with me.) I do not accept him now, nor will I accept him in the future.

And just how did they do damage to the US Military? We got a pay raise which is something we DID NOT get under Clinton. The military actually started getting better under Bush. If you think what I said is ignorant, then I find what your saying to be Democrat Talking Points. I know what state our military was in Under Clinton and under Bush 41. I do know that things for the military are better under Bush 43, not perfect but better. Have you ever served a day in the military? If not, then you have no room to talk. Most of my family has served in the military so I've grown up around it. I've been on Military Bases, I know what the military personel are saying. They know that it is now better under Bush, it isn't perfect and it'll never be perfect, but it is better than it used to be.
The military is overextended to the point where they're calling IRR people (over a third of whom have refused to report for duty), and they're stop-lossing people all over the place. In many cases, Guard units are being cobbled together from multiple units and shipped out, without ever having trained together. And don't even get me started on how they were shipped to Iraq without proper equipment--shipped out long before that bullshit $87billion vote, so don't even try to play that card. You may not like to hear it, but there it is. Believe me or not--I don't care--but every time you try to throw some of this crap in my face, I'll be slinging it right back. Count on it,

Allow me to say


Dude, 42 ****ing percent?


Yeah I've heard that as well, but apparently 46% or something want him excecuted. Interesting split.

The kurds wont get their own state because Turkey don't like them either.

That's why I think it is too early for national elections. What needs to happen first is a firm rule of law, a market economy, and elections at a local level. But national elections go too far too fast. I'd rather see a strong but liberal leader, rather than a democratically elected, yet autocratic leader. That's been the case with a lot of leaders recently, like Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez.

I think you're probably right -- but when the interests of the Iraqi people (and frankly the security and stability of the entire region) come a very distant second to the immediate electoral needs of George W Bush and co., Inc., what can you do? Iraq will be bulldozed into an unworkable and wholly premature pseudo-election because Dubya needs to look decisive and in control.

Mind you, even if Iraq was allowed to stabilise first (assuming that such a thing is possible in a phoney country inhabited by radically different ethnic and religious groups with long traditions of mutual antipathy, once the central dictatorship has been removed), it would still try to split up as soon as people were allowed to express their democratic opinions.

I see casualty numbers growing by leaps and bounds, both of US soldiers and of Iraqi civilians. I see explosions and destruction daily. I see reports that notes that electricity and water service is back below pre-war standards. I read reports about instability even in Baghdad around the Green Zone. I read statements from Marine Generals who were on the ground who said it's FUBAR and it's getting worse, so yes, I believe my sources.

Is that all you see? The bad side of things? Boy you really do want us to fail don't you? I have seen the good things that are going on in Baghdad. I have seen the children happy and helping them paint schools. I have seen our soldiers try to go out of their way NOT to harm civilians. As for your sources, look for sources that are also mentioning good news coming from Iraq. The enemy wants you to think that things are worse than they are and you fell straight into it. Congratulations.

I taught college composition and rhetoric for four years while in grad school. I'm not writing a (watch it--f-bomb coming) fucking essay here. I'm arguing with a snot-nosed kid who thinks he knows how the world works. F-bombs are more than appropriate--they're necessary. Can't handle them? Put me on ignore. I won't lose any sleep over it.

I never stated how that I know how the world works. All I stated is that I have a better grasp because of my family back ground. As for you teaching college composition, that had to be one of the worst classes that I've ever taken. Your right it is not an essay, however, the first rule of debate is that you don't drop a cuss word in the middle of your point. It really does invalidate it. Still surprised that you did not know this.

All of which means jack fuck-all to me. (And you really don't want to argue the illegitimacy of Bush v Gore with me.) I do not accept him now, nor will I accept him in the future.

Actually I am Willing to argue it because I do know what SCOTUS said regarding Florida. Did you know that the Florida Supreme Court had ONE Republican and SIX Democrats during that? Did you know that the rulings done by them were SIX to ONE? I can pull out the SCOTUS ruling and show you what the SCOTUS found out about what the Florida Supreme Court was doing.

The military is overextended to the point where they're calling IRR people (over a third of whom have refused to report for duty), and they're stop-lossing people all over the place. In many cases, Guard units are being cobbled together from multiple units and shipped out, without ever having trained together. And don't even get me started on how they were shipped to Iraq without proper equipment--shipped out long before that bullshit $87billion vote, so don't even try to play that card. You may not like to hear it, but there it is. Believe me or not--I don't care--but every time you try to throw some of this crap in my face, I'll be slinging it right back. Count on it,

You never answered my question. You did a very nice job of Dodging. I do know how the military operates Incertonia! I grew up around it with stories from relatives and my Parents. Both of my parents served in the military. A stop-loss is the SOP in times like this. They even did it DURING THE FIRST GULF WAR incase you did not know that. I believe they even did it somewhat during Bosnia! You really do know nothing about the military. As for Guard units not training together, that is a load of horse-hockey. Guard Units actually do train together unless you have proof that they don't! As for me not wanting to hear it, I think you really should bone up on your Military Information before spout crap about it to a Military Brat.

Laws can be changed. I´m unaware of any country that allows prisoners to run for any office. That is just ridiculous and outrageous. A real provocation.
He won´t run - he will be hanged.

you can in the UK and most of europe infact. In some countries a president is actually immune to prosecution. If the US can have a criminal as president why can't other countries nationalist?

That's why I think it is too early for national elections. What needs to happen first is a firm rule of law, a market economy, and elections at a local level. But national elections go too far too fast. I'd rather see a strong but liberal leader, rather than a democratically elected, yet autocratic leader. That's been the case with a lot of leaders recently, like Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez.

who will decide this war weirdo? a bunch of people appointed by the us? a market economy imposed upon iraq, and only then national elections can be considered? what are you, an american or something?

you can in the UK and most of europe infact. In some countries a president is actually immune to prosecution. If the US can have a criminal as president why can't other countries nationalist?

And how is Bush a criminal? The only criminal I can think of is Clinton when he committed Purgery which is an impeachable offense. Before him was Lincoln's successor before he was Impeached but was not removed either.

And how is Bush a criminal? The only criminal I can think of is Clinton when he committed Purgery which is an impeachable offense. Before him was Lincoln's successor before he was Impeached but was not removed either.

George W Bush is America's first president to have a criminal record. He's been arrested 3 times: once for drunkenness, once for theft, and once for drunk driving. But he's paid his price, done his time, and should be treated just like everyone else.

George W Bush is America's first president to have a criminal record. He's been arrested 3 times: once for drunkenness, once for theft, and once for drunk driving. But he's paid his price, done his time, and should be treated just like everyone else.

Theft? That is a new one! I have not herd of that. The other 2 I have but he paid the penalty and moved on. As for theft, that one is a new one on me.

Theft? That is a new one! I have not herd of that. The other 2 I have but he paid the penalty and moved on. As for theft, that one is a new one on me.

He stole a Christmas wreath from a hotel when he was 20, and probably when he was drunk. Although he was arrested for this, eventually the charges were dropped. The adolescent antics of the rich are of course expressions of "high spirits", whereas equivalent behaviour from poorer members of society is merely criminal. It's like the difference between being "eccentric" (crazy but rich) and mentally ill (crazy but poor).

He stole a Christmas wreath from a hotel when he was 20, and probably when he was drunk. Although he was arrested for this, eventually the charges were dropped. The adolescent antics of the rich are of course expressions of "high spirits", whereas equivalent behaviour from poorer members of society is merely criminal. It's like the difference between being "eccentric" (crazy but rich) and mentally ill (crazy but poor).

Ironically, Michael Moore did not mention this in a letter that is floating out there on the web. He stated that it was:

1) Drunkeness (Minor Offense)

2) Disorderly Conduct at a football game (minor Offense)

3) DUI (Paid the price for this)

No where does he mention a christmas wreath. So where does that story come from?

George W Bush is America's first president to have a criminal record. He's been arrested 3 times: once for drunkenness, once for theft, and once for drunk driving. But he's paid his price, done his time, and should be treated just like everyone else.
Why should he? His good pal Katherine Harris has the idea that being a convicted felon should automatically have you struck off the electoral role (along with anyone with a similar name and/or birthday). Bush supports this, so how can he possibly argue that he should be allowed to stand? A tad hypocritical wouldn't you agree?
Is that all you see? The bad side of things? Boy you really do want us to fail don't you? I have seen the good things that are going on in Baghdad. I have seen the children happy and helping them paint schools. I have seen our soldiers try to go out of their way NOT to harm civilians. As for your sources, look for sources that are also mentioning good news coming from Iraq. The enemy wants you to think that things are worse than they are and you fell straight into it. Congratulations.
Well I guess the Bush admin have also fallen straight into it as well:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said the conflict between US forces and insurgents in Iraq is getting worse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3691748.stm
The US defence secretary (Donald Rumsfeld) has suggested Iraq may only be able to hold limited elections in January, omitting areas where violence is most severe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3685340.stm
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says more US forces will be sent to Iraq if American commanders want them.
In the Pentagon, military officials say they have been making prudent contingency plans for possible extra troop deployments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3685730.stm


30/09/04: Dozens of children die in blasts in Baghdad as violence claims more victims in the Iraqi capital and elsewhere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3702710.stm

Ironically, Michael Moore did not mention this in a letter that is floating out there on the web. He stated that it was:

1) Drunkeness (Minor Offense)

2) Disorderly Conduct at a football game (minor Offense)

3) DUI (Paid the price for this)

No where does he mention a christmas wreath. So where does that story come from?

The article is here (http://www.dke.org/bushyaletimes.html). Checking it more thoroughly I see that, although Bush stole a Christmas wreath, he offence he was charged with was "disorderly conduct". Since this was the first time he wa arrested, I assume this is the "drunkenness" referred to in Moore's encyclical.

Yeah Kybernetia... the only safe suicide demonstrators are the Buddhists. They only set themselfs to fire.
The Kurds did that as well in Germany in 1994 - set themself on fire (PKK).
Well - and committing some attacks on Turkish instituitions. One reason to be against Turkish membership since that would even more led to an import of the Turkish problems.

I´m not at all against people committing suicide. I see that as their business.
But if they murder others than they are murderers.
And that is what suicide bombers do and want to do.

Ok. All abovesaid besides Kybernetia... what if there is an election in which only 75% can vote (if that). Who will that serve? Will the result of that kind of an election appease the country?
Counter-question: Whom will it serve if there isn´t an election? Whom will it serve if 0% of the Iraqi people get a say?
I think imperfect elections are still better than no elections.
Iraq needs a transitional period to stabilize, just like South Korea needed one. They are only a full democracy since 1989 after all - 36 years transitional period after the war. It will need time to stabilize Iraq and before Iraq turns into a full democracy. Firstly it is important to stabilize the situation and to establish security. Then it is possible to boost the economy. And if that happends democracy is going to develop some day almost automaticaly. I´m convinced in that: but it will take more time.

Why should he? His good pal Katherine Harris has the idea that being a convicted felon should automatically have you struck off the electoral role (along with anyone with a similar name and/or birthday). Bush supports this, so how can he possibly argue that he should be allowed to stand? A tad hypocritical wouldn't you agree?

Oh, yes, tremendously hypocritical, but you have to remember the sort of environment Bush came from. The silver spoon in the mouth, or on the chain around the neck at least; the near-total insulation from the real world and its problems; the lack of any real challenge as his dad's money wafted him past every obstacle in life. You can't expect someone like that to be normal, or to have had the chance to develop the same sort of moral sense as you or I.

I still think, personally, even if he is the first president with a criminal record, he's endured the gentle little slap on the wrist society reserves for the well-heeled criminal and deserves the same treatment as every other ex-con. If he and his cronies feel that other ex-cons should be treated differently, well, it won't be the first time I've disagreed with them.

The article is here (http://www.dke.org/bushyaletimes.html). Checking it more thoroughly I see that, although Bush stole a Christmas wreath, he offence he was charged with was "disorderly conduct". Since this was the first time he wa arrested, I assume this is the "drunkenness" referred to in Moore's encyclical.

Actually they are two seperate incidents! I know about the drunkeness and the DUI because the Democrats tossed that out there 4 years ago in mid-october.

I don't know why the police charged him with disorderly conduct and not petty theft. You'll have to ask the arresting officer on that one. But since he was charged with Disorderly Conduct which is actually different than theft...that is what is placed on the record, the disorderly conduct charge and not theft. That is how police records are done. It goes by what you are charged with by the arresting officer.

Laws can be changed. I´m unaware of any country that allows prisoners to run for any office. That is just ridiculous and outrageous. A real provocation.
He won´t run - he will be hanged.

Iraqis must be real gluttons for punishment if 42% of them would vote for him.

In the early 1980's, IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands, who was in prison at the time, stood for election as an MP (Member of Parliament) in Northern Ireland for the House of Commons (UK Parliament), which is in Westminster. He was elected, but couldn't go there to take his seat, because he had to stay in prison. Not long after that he died of starvation and they had to fly the Union Jack at half mast because they do this when any MP dies, although he was totally against that flag and represented Sinn Fein whose policy is for Northern Ireland to leave the UK and join the Irish Republic.

The Kurds did that as well in Germany in 1994 - set themself on fire (PKK).
Well - and committing some attacks on Turkish instituitions. One reason to be against Turkish membership since that would even more led to an import of the Turkish problems.

I´m not at all against people committing suicide. I see that as their business.
But if they murder others than they are murderers.
And that is what suicide bombers do and want to do.

I'm totally opposed to Turkey or any Muslim country joining the EU. Muslim countries have sexist laws, which are against women and non stereotype men. Being anti Muslim comes under Sectarianism, not Racism. I have every right to be against people who are against everything I stand for!

Well I guess the Bush admin have also fallen straight into it as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3691748.stm

And I did not say anything about the insurrection in any of my posts did I? No I did not. You implied it and that was a wrong implication. I also want you to look at the calender. We are by my count, 33 days till election day. I can tell you that they will get worse. We all know that this is going to happen so I am not surprised. I'm saying that Schools are re-opening as are hospitals. Things are slowly getting getting back to normal. Now if we can find and kill Al Zarqawi and knock out the rest of the resistance then maybe Iraqi reconstruction will take off. As of now though, it is a slow process.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3685340.stm

Now for Iraqi Elections, I would rather have them in part of the country than not at all. Allawi even said that'll be preferable than none at all. We can debate the merits of this all we want but the decisions are not up to us. It is actually up to Allawi on wether or not they go forward or not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3685730.stm

Notice the phrases "if American commanders want them". It is basically up to CENTCOM for this since it is in CENTCOM's jurisdiction. If they do not call for them then they won't be sent. As for Contingency plans, gotta have a plan for everything so this comes as no surprise to me.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3702710.stm

I've heard this story and this will make the Iraqis very upset with the terrorists. Something that terrorists don't seem to understand that if you kill children in your attacks wether by accident or not, its going to make alot of people mad. Look at Russia for a prime example of this. This will invigorate the Iraqis against the terrorists.

Actually they are two seperate incidents! I know about the drunkeness and the DUI because the Democrats tossed that out there 4 years ago in mid-october.

I don't know why the police charged him with disorderly conduct and not petty theft. You'll have to ask the arresting officer on that one. But since he was charged with Disorderly Conduct which is actually different than theft...that is what is placed on the record, the disorderly conduct charge and not theft. That is how police records are done. It goes by what you are charged with by the arresting officer.

Yup. Although in this case the charge was dropped.

I'm totally opposed to Turkey or any Muslim country joining the EU. Muslim countries have sexist laws, which are against women and non stereotype men. Being anti Muslim comes under Sectarianism, not Racism. I have every right to be against people who are against everything I stand for!
I´m also against a Turkish membership in the EU. I have nothing against a privileged partnership. But one should always takes care first about its own nation. And then for the nations who are close allies and to which one has a lot culturally in common. The EU - even in its current form - offers such an umbrella. That would be over if Turkey is allowed in. I´ve nothing against defense cooperation or free trade with Turkey within a privileged partnership.
But allowing them into the EU - which would mean free immigration of 100 million Turks (population estimate for 2030) I only see as irresponsible. I think our governments - that especially includes the German and the British government (Britain is traditionally the strongest supporter of Turkish membership) have gone mad.
At least for continental Europe I can say that the goverments are simply ignoring the will of the people in that matter.

Yup. Although in this case the charge was dropped.

So since there was no conviction and the charges dropped, it doesn't go into any criminal file.

So since there was no conviction and the charges dropped, it doesn't go into any criminal file.

True. Which is why I said originally that he'd been arrested three times, not convicted three times. His worst criminal conviction is a drunk-driving charge in Maine in 1976 -- which, among other things, means that if he wants to visit Canada he has to get letters from his friends saying that he has cleaned up his act. Either that, or obtain a special waiver from a senior Canadian immigration official. Perhaps this is why Bush's planned visits to Canada keep getting "postponed", even though a visit to Canada is usually the first official foreign trip any US president makes.

And I did not say anything about the insurrection in any of my posts did I? No I did not. You implied it and that was a wrong implication.

Well if you were to read your posts, you would see that you said:
The enemy wants you to think that things are worse than they are and you fell straight into it.
If this isn't about the increasing insurrection, what were you talking about?
Even the Bush admin admit it's getting worse.

BTW: it should be 'inferred', not implied. You infer from my implication, ok?