NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing that Saddam Hussein (former or current president of Iraq, whatever you want to believe) plans to run for president in the January 2005 elections in Iraq and no International law or Iraqi law (afaik) banning him from doing so, what do you think? Should he have the right to run for president in this newly born democracy or not?

If yes, why? And if not why?

Please keep in mind that democracy means the people chose, not the US nor any other outside force.

Yes, unless he is a felony convict by that time.

Could you link something about Saddam running. I'd look it up myself but I'm in the middle of something. I can't shake the sense that something is missing from this.

Well hey, if the Iraqi people really want to elect him into office, I say let them. Natural selection will run its course . . .

Could you link something about Saddam running. I'd look it up myself but I'm in the middle of something. I can't shake the sense that something is missing from this.
I'm sorry, but your shortcomings of keeping up with political world development are not my faults. You will have to look it up yourself e.g. by using www.google.com :)

Well hey, if the Iraqi people really want to elect him into office, I say let them. Natural selection will run its course . . .
I doubt Saddam would get any votes from the Kurds, at least the ones that he didn't kill

I doubt Saddam would get any votes from the Kurds, at least the ones that he didn't kill

I'm sure he'd have every Kurd he killed registered as voting for him.

If Iraq is a true democracy, and Saddam hasn't been convicted yet, then he's a-okay.

Eugene V. Debbs ran for President of the United States in 1920


From a prison cell

Aren't we all assuming the Iraqis won't put him to death?

Aren't we all assuming the Iraqis won't put him to death?
Only after a fair trial :)

Just think, if the lefties win, and sh wins, it'll be just like old times.

Aren't we all assuming the Iraqis won't put him to death?
hopefully, but I think I would rather see Saddam on the ballot first, and then watch him lose in his own former country, and THEN be put to death.

That would be the best execution ever, IMO.

Dictator, on the run, living in a hole, smoked out, living in a prison, sent to an Iraqi court, going back to the prison, running for President, own citizens kick his arse out of office, get sentenced to death :D

Actually, I wish we can do that for Bush too.

hopefully, but I think I would rather see Saddam on the ballot first, and then watch him lose in his own former country, and THEN be put to death.

That would be the best execution ever, IMO.

Dictator, on the run, living in a hole, smoked out, living in a prison, sent to an Iraqi court, going back to the prison, running for President, own citizens kick his arse out of office, get sentenced to death :D

Actually, I wish we can do that for Bush too.
I think Bush's trial and following execution by beheading would attract worldwide dream ratings and viewership followed by spontaneous world-wide festivities and the installation of a world-wide rememberance day of this glorious event.

I think Bush's trial and following execution by beheading would attract worldwide dream ratings and viewership followed by spontaneous world-wide festivities and the installation of a world-wide rememberance day of this glorious event.
It would indeed be a day to end all needless suffering. Both the suffering of Americans, American allies, and the rest of the world.

Also the US being held accountable or policing itself in such a fashion, would be a precedence which I could actually support. The refusal to accept the ICC/ICJ by the US (and Bush's laughable attempt to justify it in the first debate) are another nail in the coffin of US credibility. As the saying goes, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. But the atrocities commited by the US world-wide in the name of "good" (sick play with words by the US since a long time) is obvious and thus requires the US to stay out of international courts which might, god forbid, find the US guilty of human rights violations, genocide, international law violations, etc. etc.

I think acknowledging the ICC/ICJ would be a good first step to restore some faith in the US motives and image in the world. Furthermore acknowleding that an international court does not serve national interests but the greater good of mankind by holding leaders of nations worldwide accountable to generally accepted laws, would be a step in the right direction. Giving up some of this self-granted right to excempt itself from law and order would do well for the US to regain some trust from other western nations.

Justifying an excemption from international law with military supremacy or economic power, is a show of arrogance which greatly weakens US credibility.

I hope Saddam wins. Or communsits do.