Iraqis want Saddam to run for election ("We lost security after Saddam")

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Daily Times - Site Edition Thursday, December 01, 2005

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2005\12\01\story_1-12-2005_pg4_14



‘Iraqis want Saddam to run for election’

AMMAN: Iraqis have asked Saddam Hussein’s defence team to mull the possibility of fielding the ousted dictator as a candidate for future elections, one of his lawyers said in remarks published on Wednesday. “Iraqis have asked the defence team to study the legal conditions to present Saddam Hussein as a candidate for elections, first as an MP then as president,” Jordan’s Al-Dustour daily quoted former Qatari justice minister Najib al-Nuaimi as saying.

“If this contradicts the legal system then president Saddam will be nominated simply as a candidate,” he said, without specifying if Saddam could try to run in the December 15 election.

Nuaimi is among three foreign lawyers along with former US attorney general Ramsey Clark and Jordanian lawyer Issam Ghazzawi who were sworn in by the Iraqi court as members of Saddam’s defence at Monday’s hearing. Asked by AFP about Nuaimi’s reported remarks, Ghazzawi said: “As we were leaving Iraq on Tuesday ordinary Iraqis at the airport approached us saying they wished that Saddam would return (as president).”

“These Iraqis said ‘we have lost security after Saddam, how we wish he would return’,” Ghazzawi said.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Wouldn't that be something if they let him run, and he WON?

Then what would Bush do?

[elehhhhna]

2. If he won as a write-in, our shame would be complete.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Only some of the Sunnis would vote for him.

The rest of the country hates his fucking guts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Yes, but do they hate his guts more than they hate ours?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. I think we're probably about even at this point. n/t

[Dhalgren]

8. Ever wonder why they didn't overthrow him? Seriously.

The Iraqis have shown that they can give the mighty US military as hard a time as its had; so why did they put up with Saddam if they hated him him so badly? I am not being facetious. When the US invaded Iraq, the general population was armed. It was in all of the reports coming out of the conquest; it is an Iraqi tradition to fire guns into the air at celebrations. Also, Saddam appeared in public often - in crowds (Bush can't do that)! I really wonder sometimes just how badly the average Iraqi actually "hated" Saddam...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Uh, they tried.

He brutally slaughtered them. Do you think the North Koreans like Kim jong il? Do you think Burmese enjoy their military junta?

[Dhalgren]

11. The N. Koreans aren't armed, neither are the Burmese.

This is a similar problem that the US faced in Vietnam. The US said that it was fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese, but whenever a Vietnamese civilian acquired a gun, he or she shot at US soldiers; and the ARVN troops (as a whole, not individuals) could not stand against the enemy. The question for both of these situations is "Why?". Why won't the Iraqis (other than the insurgents) fight for themselves? Is it because the Iraqi people side more strongly with the insurgents?

As far as Saddam slaughtering Iraqis who rose up against him, that is true. But that slaughter was no worse (and maybe even not as bad) as the murder of Falujah. But that didn't quell the insurgency, it made it worse. Why didn't Saddam's murder of a large group of Shi'ite insurgents (who are the majority Iraqis) make their insurgency worse?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. Umm...

Arms are only part of the issue. Half of the reason the current insurgency in Iraq is so effective is because the insurgents are able to blend into the population at large. That wasn't possible under Saddam, as he both understood the culture and had the intelligence capacity to root out susepcted dissidents. He also had a penchant for murdering anyone within the social vicinity of suspected dissidents.

Why didn't Saddam's murder of a large group of Shi'ite insurgents (who are the majority Iraqis) make their insurgency worse?

Because the country still had a functioning government that was capable of putting down any such uprising. Most of those who weren't slaughtered became refugees, along with their families.


As far as Saddam slaughtering Iraqis who rose up against him, that is true. But that slaughter was no worse (and maybe even not as bad) as the murder of Falujah.

You seem to have no idea what the aftermath of the uprising was like. Here is the Human Rights Watch report:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm

So, yes. Imagine Falluja, ten times worse, and on a regional scale, with civilians intentionally targeted, and you begin to approximate what happened to those who rose up against Saddam. Also what happened to those who sympathised with the rebellion, and those who just happened to live in the same towns.

And we just left them there. It's one of the most shameful episodes in recent US history.

[Dhalgren]

13. I agree with you completely. And I do understand and have read the

reports about the 1991 Shi'ite rising. But everything you say about Saddam's knowledge and abilities could also be said of Iraqis who opposed him. When you have an armed population, there must be at least some level of satisfaction with the government (some kind of "pro and con" matrix) that allows the government to continue unmolested in the presence of an armed citizenry. I am not saying that Saddam was not justifiably hated by many Iraqis, he undoubtedly was/is. I am saying that there is a reason why Iraqis did not fight against Saddam as they are fighting against the US and why Iraqis won't fight for themselves against the insurgents. The Iraqis are full-grown, intelligent, functional adults; if they choose to do or not to do something, there is a reason for it. If there are only between 20 and 50 thousand insurgents out of 27 million Iraqis and yet the Iraqis are not putting a stop to it, then something else is at play. Just my two cents...

[welshTerrier2]

5. the "Imus" solution

morning talk show host, Don Imus, has been saying for about a year now that the US should "put Saddam back in power" because he's the only guy that will be able to re-stabilize the country ... he said Saddam must have learned his lesson by now that he can't get away doing all the bad stuff he did ...

there's no way this would ever happen and there's no way it should happen ... still, the pre-war lesson remains ... many of us counseled that a devastating power vacuum would be created if we toppled Saddam's regime ... now we're paying for our failure of ignoring the law of obvious consequences ...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Well, they figured on parades and flowers, not a power vacuum.

Oops.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

7. "Sorry about Swoozie and Koozie..."

Imus' comment yesterday about Uday and Qusay. He added "Sorry about the kids, Saddam...but, he really doesn't seem to care."

:patriot:

[cantstandbush]

14. Put him on the ticket. I bet he gets more votes than Chalabi! n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. That would be the Mother of All Ironies, wouldn't it?

I don't think it will, or should, happen; Saddam is an evil SOB who shouldn't be allowed to run for dogcatcher. Nevertheless, if Iraq is supposed to be a democracy, and the people actually voluntarily elect him, what will Bush say about that?