Iraqi Solution (Supporters of War, and Anti-War People - Both Read)
 

This proposal is for a UN-ran election in Iraq. An election similar to that run in the United States. Primaries would be run. Money would be given by the US to to the candidates which is certainly a lot cheaper than war. This money will provide campaign funding, including air time. The Iraqi people vote on their leader with Saddam Hussein being one of those people running. I don't see this idea being opposed by enough UN countries to deny it going through, especially the 5 countries with vetoing power. All of this would need to be done in a limited amount of time. Suggested time would be a week for the UN to draft and send the proposal and for Saddam Hussein to be given 48 hours to respond. Given the UN approval of this proposal, there would be three possible results:

1) Saddam does not reach a decision in 48 hours - This shows he's unsure about the idea, and knows he faces the possibility of defeat. This should be enough to persuade the veto-powered nations and other nations to vote in favor of military action in Iraq.
2) Saddam rejects the proposal - This shows that he knows he knows that he will lose and is not interested. This also should be enough to persuade the veto-powered nations and other nations to vote in favor of military action in Iraq.

3) Saddam agrees - We hold elections very similar to those in the United States. Given what he says holds true, the people will anonymously elect him. If this is not the case another leader (a Kurd, or Shiit, or whoever won the election) takes power. All new methods of governing would be implimented with a new ruler.

Additional things included in the propsosal would be certain stipulations that the UN would demand given a new ruler took over, including steps we think would be necessary in order to convert Iraq to a sucessful, functitioning nation. The aforementioned proposal is very logical, and has nothing but sought after outcomes for the United states:

a) UN agrees with US that military action must be taken (Resulting from options 1 and 2 above)
b) Election is held in which another leader is chosen. (Resulting from option 3 above)

THe United States either gets support for military action to be taken to install a new form of government or a new form of government is installed without military use.

Comments on this?

suppose he agrees with the election, then what? All his people are brainwashed, they can not think themselves to vote, of course they are going to vote for Saddam, even when they are other conditates

They're not brainwashed, they're threatened with being killed. When you have UN soldiers at polling stations, this threat is removed and they can speak what they actually feel.

Interesting idea. Now can we book Jimmy Carter for this gig?

"Comments on this?"

... good points, but will the us control the iraq oil ??

It'll be the Iraqi government controlling things. THe US would not control the oil. Specific things could be included in the proposal suggesting or demanding how certain things (including oil trades) be done.

Anways lets say they vote and Saddam wins this fair election. Does the US just pack up and go home?
I doubt it.

Its a total lose/lose for Saddam so he wouldn't do it.

if saddam won. then it would prove they already have the democracy we want to install.

if he loses they have a democracy and that is why we are attacking right.

and gezz no one dies!

great idea!!!!

this solution was proposed by Iran few hours ago...

Oops, misclicked and quoted instead of edited.

Link?

I read an article recently that said that Democratic countries in the middle east would be a nightmare for the U.S. Non-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan are much easier for the U.S. to control because they don't have to worry about the opinion of the people, only the government leaders. If Saudi Arabia was Democratic, do you really think the people their would support the United States attacking Iraq? Of course not.

Look at what problems Democracy is causing in Turkey. Polls show that 94% of the population of Turkey are against supporting a U.S. war in Iraq, that's hard for a democratic government to ignore.

If Iraq ever does become a democracy, and I think most of us hope that it does, our problems are not going to magically disappear. As long as people are stupid enough to believe the current Whitehouse lie that "they just hate us for our freedom" then nothing is going to change.

The US already has a new leader for Iraq in the person of Luitenant General Jay Garner and the UN already mentioned that
it would NOT want to lead Iraqi Elections. The UN also does not
want to lead investigations to Iraqi´s which had ties with Saddam
´s regime and prosecute them for war crimes.

b.t.w. Elections like in the US? Hahaha that would make Iraq a
DemoCrazy and nothing else.

DynaMite :2 cents:

Turkey is a democracy, Spain is a democracy and 95% of the
people are against war. UK is a democrazy and the majority of
the people are against a war........wake up man an OVERWHELMING
amount of people from ALL over the world are against war.
Not only France and Germany those are just leaders that are
against it.

DynaMite

It's a better suggestion than war. I'll say that for it.

This sounds like a viable option... but it has one simple flaw, and that is that America doesn't want Sadaam to be in the equation.

America want's to impliment a clean slate government into Iraq, the Europeans don't want this because it will promote the change for the Iraqi oil back to the US dollar. At the moment it is exchanged in the value of the Euro. That is why Germany, France and Russia have a problem with this war...

That's the war in a nutshell. A simple way to put all the complex issues attached to this war.

Eliminating him by "playing fair" (an election certainly is fair) will appease the UN, as well as get the end result the United States wants.

But what if he actually won the election? What if all we've heard about how the Iraqi people feel about him was bullshit?

Off topic:

OK, one thing I don't get out of all of this: The UN was developed to pretty much stop Russia, I mean yes it ended up being for a lot of other reasons, but it was developed during the cold war to prevent mother Russia from attacking US interests.

How is it in less than 10 years, Russia is not only sitting at the table, but also holds a veto trump card? that part I don't understand. War or no war.

The vast majority of the public in France and Germany are against the war, they are democratic countries. The reason that 90% of people in France are against war is not because of some Rush Limbaugh propaganda about the euro versus the dollar.

The exact same could be said of why the U.S. does want a war. Bush doesn't really care about terrorism or humanitarianism, he just wants to attack Iraq because he wants to take the oil and turn it into dollars instead of euros.

See how easy that is? When you look at it like that, is it more ethical to start a war for money or to oppose a war for money? To kill people for money, or to not kill people for money?

We are amassing 250,000 troops in the Middle East you really think they are going to sit in the sand while an election is held. What if Saddam wins.
Bush is going to kill him. That is the only thing that is going to happen. At this point doesnt matter whether you agree or not.Things have gone too far. Bush wont back down.

Damn democracy!

It always gets in the way of good bloodthirsty, imperialistic warmongering! :1orglaugh

Then the United States is proven wrong on issue number two, and cannot argue that with the UN as a reason to use military force against Iraq. Then they're left with issue one, believing that they have WMD (and it starts back over, but at least we've eliminated one thing). Realstically, Saddam will not be re-elected by his people.

Great idea, let's look at the possibilities.

The closest country to there had a "Popular uprising" that was backed by the majority of the country. Iran. Great solution.

So lets look at the other countries in the area and see what you else you have, Turkey. Not the most stable democracy and at the moment the people are very anti the war and telling their poloticians NO to involvement. Aren't thety also trying to get in to the EEC and members of NATO.

Jordan, not much help their. In fact can anyone come up with a democracy in that area?

Israel, again not a great example.

In fact the problem is that there are no democracies in that area and never have been. Why do most Westerners think in every Gook there is a westerner trying to get out?

Saddam wins, that removes one axcuse to invade, he only has to get 51% of the country to like him. Or what if the guy who succeeds him is worse?

So far this is the bumbest idea yet. Stop trying to turn the Middle East into the Mid West.

The USSR was always part of the UN. The WW II "allies" formed it - which included the USSR.

Maybe he meant NATO?

Talk about a stupid idea. Towelheads cannot be trusted with the vote.

Moron.

Iraq just held elections. Saddam won 99% of the vote. People actullay pricked their fingers to vote with blood.

What Westerners like us fail to understand is Middle-Eastern Culture. Over 50% of the Iraqi population works for, or is related to someone who works for, the Government. Either in the military or another Government institution. They all like Saddam.

Attacking Iraq is perceived as a personal attack on their families. They are not going to cooperate.

Did you mistype this clause at the end? Isn't it supposed to read:

a) UN agrees to get together to squabble about another resolution. (Resulting from options 1 and 2 above)

There's a few updates I'd like to make to it...but there's a wonderful feature where you can't edit it after 60 minutes.

You're very very wrong. The simple fact that he will kill those who vote against him is enough to convince people to vote for him. And it's not 99%, it's 100.0000% - he's won every time anonymously.

The old Soviet Union used to have elections too, and everyone voted! Of course it was all a sham.. but they voted!

Simple. Someone, somewhere f'd up. They took their 'eyes off the ball'.

:1orglaugh

I'd love to think that your solution would work, but there are problems that should be addressed.

1. I don't think it should be just the US who gives money for the elections. Come to think of it, France and Germany are two countries who benefit the most from Iraq and dislike the US the most.

2. There is no way to have a fair election in Iraq. Their people are way to scared of what will happen to them if he loses. No one there would believe they are 'safe' from the government. The UN cannot protect everyone within Iraq.

3. Not sure if you noticed, but all the dudes in Iraq dress and act just like Saddam. The women are, like most countries over there, not respected and would no way win an election.

4. The people of Iraq do not know anything about freedom and democracy. This is evident as they have not fought for their rights, nor will they ever fight for their rights. So, should someone other than Saddam win, they will continue with the same type of government that has always existed there.

I must commend you on doing something different by offering solutions without bashing America. It's so nice to see.

:)

You make the mistake in thinking that these (Saddam and his cohorts) are just misguided individuals who have a good heart buried somewhere deep down inside. We will talk to them nice and reasonably, and they will see the light!

The average Arab person does not like (if not hate for) the US, the average Iraqi has a fundamental hate for the US.

The regime which controls the Iraqi population is corrupt brutal, and intertwined within the population so completely that what you are proposing, is like walking through a pirana infested river while carrying raw bacon in your hands - you?re going to get bitten, and once they get a taste, you?re going to get eaten.

Unfortunately viewing the world from within a democracy, and being ignorant, as a lot of us are, as to how ass-backwards that these parts of the world indeed are, makes us overly optimistic as to the possibility of change, and somehow magically making these bad parts of the world -right again-

On the other side of the coin, a lot of people think, you invade Iraq, oust Saddam, and go home again, and every one lived happily ever after!

Remember the second world war;
Germany, US and allied troops still stationed there.
Japan, US troops still there.
Korea 50 years later, US troops are still there

1. I have a revised copy but I couldn't edit my post (60 minute limit) to alter things. I meant to say the UN (yes, including Russia, France, Germany, etc).

2. There's a very easy way to have a fair election in Iraq. Have Saddam agree to allow US soldiers to conduct the polls (insuring that the people that they would not be harmed regardless of their vote) and had the proctection of US soldiers at the polls/sanctions.

3. If given the opportunity, ANY Iraqi citizen not party of the ruling socialist party (basically 90+ percent that are in poverty) and given that there would be guarantee no harm done to them no matter what their vote, they'd vote for anybody other than Saddam (any major Kurd/Shiite leader for instance).

4. Under my proposal, the UN would enforce certain laws given another person won the election (other than Saddam). Not only would that person himself change the way the country is run, but basic UN rules attached to this would ensure a lot of the major problems with the country were changed. Not necessarily installing a democracy, but helping the monarchy work better. The citizens would prefer ANYTHING else, they have no choice now. If they vote against Saddam or suggest another way of governing, they're killed...simple as that.

I have a domain that should be up within the next 6 hours dedicated to this issue / proposal. I've formally written up exactly what needs to happen and included a method for people to post their name / location as a way of "signing" the document (basically agreeing with it). My hope is that people will see just how well this would work (in every way), could avoid war, and get Saddam out of office (if he opposed this idea, then the UN I believe, would change their minds about having to militarily liberate Iraq).

My overall goal is to have people here, on AIM / ICQ, and other popular boards to post the URL (iraqsolution.com - should be propagated later tonight) to all of their family, friends, and co-workers. With just that initial small number, local news stations around me would be willing to give the idea some publicity because such a large interest occured in such a short period of time.

From there, only more and more will sign (because it makes sense to everybody, regardless if you're pro-war or anti-war). It's basically the perfect solution that would work out great for everybody. Saddam would get a fair chance to prove if his people would re-elect him or not, and the US gets their chance to prove that they would not. It's a clear cut case, based on numbers.

My goal is to get word of mouth advertising, then local news stations (it'd be great if others could call their local stations and suggest this as a story / highlight in the news cast). From there, it'll grow more and more by word of mouth, hopefully making it to larger news sources such as CNN/ABC/CBS where it can be promoted worldwide. Once it gets to that point, the US Government will most likely take notice (because so many Americans have spoken, together...reagardless of views). At that point, I'd hope they would suggest a propsal like this to the United Nations, which will eventually get passed on to Saddam.

I stayed up all night with a friend working this idea / working / site design / layout / signature system to perfection, and am still doing so. Once the domain becomes active, it'll be up right away. It all has to start somewhere, and this is where that somewhere will be. I'll post here when the full URL / site is up and running later tonight. Hopefully I have many people's support here (and from around the globe, once word spreads) for this idea.

Adding on to the last post, I'm really not sure the level of unity or cooperation I'll see with this. But deep in my heart, I know that everybody can work together on this idea, and spread it as much as possible. If some of the "major players" could provide some links on their high-traffic sites to this site (once it's up) and direct $x number of people more there, then that'll better the cause even more.

If you don't have the resources to do promotion via your websites, try to help out and tell all your friends, family, and co-workers. This could honestly be a chance for the "adult industry" to shine in the light in the world's eyes. We could be the ones to spark the spreading of this idea.

Thanks for the comments.

1. Glad to hear your suggestion calls for everyone to help. That I could agree to.

2. It is nice to think that there could be a fair election. I still don't see how we convince the people of Iraq that the US or the UN have any way of controlling what happens after the election.

It kind of reminds me of how our system works (or doesn't work) to protect children. We have a system that allows social workers to go in and protect children. But, once the social worker leaves the scene, the abuse starts up all over again. Even if you take that child away from his parents, there are no guarantees that the child will not be abused with other guardians. We cannot guarantee the safety of the people of Iraq.

3. Still, there is no way we can guarantee their safety. It's just not possible. It would be misleading for us to say that to them.

Their are two possible solutions:

a. Puppet government
b. Arm their citizens so they can defend themselves. It would be nice if people actually fought for their freedom instead of waiting for others to free them.

4. I like the idea of having some laws written into the plan. It would be difficult to decide what type of laws would work. For example, as an American, I would want the laws to be written to support democracy. However, other countries, such as Russia, would want a different type of goverment. The UN is not the best example of teamwork. It would be an ongoing fight for years.

You rock for taking thet ime to build a website and promote your idea. You are on the right track. I'm sure as you get more feedback, you'll tweek this into a solution that few can shoot holes in.

Then comes the hard part, which is getting people in power to listen.

I'll definately share your link with friends and family.

Great job!!! :thumbsup

With dozens, if not hundreds of armed US soldiers at every polling location, they're immediate safety would be protected for sure. It's fairly well know that the majority of Iraq hates Saddam but can't say so publically because of fear of getting murdered. If we can protect them long enough to allow the vote to take place, and another leader to take over, the problem is basically solved.

With Saddam out of power, his "regime" will be forced to listen to the new ruler. If they don't, they'll be considered a radical party. Nobody with common sense (even the people high up in the chain of command under Sadam) would stick with their current ways (knowing the US is going to demolish them) if they had a choice otherwise (they don't now, or they'll be killed).

I think with enough people agreeing on this topic (everybody I've mentioned this to does, regardless of race, beliefs, religion, sex), and we all work together to try to spread in the ideas with the goal in mind of having the US Government take this into serious consideration, this could be very effective. It's time people stopped whining "Bush is a moron" and take action! This is the perfect time, and way to do it!

Past experience says that, unless the country becomes a democracy, you run the chance of another bad egg getting into power. We saw this in Afganistan with the Taliban. Americans are still hearing about that crap and our goal was basically the same as your goal is here with Iraq.

Yes, the Saddam regime would listen to the new ruler. But, there would be no fear of the US demolishing them. Heck, we can't even get the UN to let us get rid of Saddam now. No way will they back us in getting rid of whoever they put into power. And even if we use the 'fear' tactic to keep them in line, we would be branded as being worse than Saddam.

The US government is not the only power that needs to hear your idea. Most of the people that you've mentioned this to, such as myself, aren't politically savvy enough to give you exactly what you need.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or nonsupportive by any means. If you are going to be successful, it is important that you get views from lots of other people, especially outside these boards. My suggestion is that you send this idea to people who have the ability to give you feedback that could deflect any arguments that you will hear. I'd send to political talk shows both radio and television (both Conservative and Liberals), Senators, possbily foreign representatives, etc. They are better qualified to give you feedback.

:thumbsup

I plan on doing all of the above once the domain propagates.

Cool. I'd love to know what you hear. Will you post again when you get feedback?

if you replace the word election with ERECTION in your message-
I am all for it!

Yep sure will. Already have informal commitments from the local news stations (broadcast to the Dayton area). Just need to wait for the site to get up so they can review it.

Here's the updated proposal since I can't edit the first post (been more than 60 minutes):<blockquote>This proposal is for a UN-ran election in Iraq. Under this proposal, the United Nations would help to provide unbiased aid for funding campaigns; a cheaper alternative than war. The Iraqi people vote on their leader with Saddam Hussein being one of those people running for election. This type of resolution is more likely to be passed by the United Nations than a War on Iraq; especially the five countries with vetoing power. All of this would need to be done in a limited amount of time. Suggested time would be a week for the United Nations to draft and send the proposal to Saddam Hussein and allow 48 hours for him to respond. Given the United Nations approval of this proposal, there would be three possible results:

1) Saddam does not reach a decision in 48 hours - This shows he's unsure about the idea, and knows he faces the possibility of defeat. This should be enough to persuade the veto-powered nations and other nations to vote in favor of military action in Iraq.

2) Saddam rejects the proposal - This shows that he knows he knows that he will lose and is not interested. This also should be enough to persuade the veto-powered nations and other nations to vote in favor of military action in Iraq.

3) Saddam accepts the proposal - We hold elections very similar to those in the United States. Given what he says holds true, the people will unanimously elect him. If this is not the case another leader (a Kurd, or Shiit, or whoever won the election) takes power. All new methods of governing would be implimented with a new ruler.

Additional things included in the propsosal would be certain stipulations that the United Nations would demand given a new ruler took over, including steps we think would be necessary in order to convert Iraq to a sucessful, functitioning nation. The aforementioned proposal is very logical, and has nothing but sought after outcomes for the United states:

a) United Nations no longer accepts Saddam as the ruler of Iraq and will support the liberation of the Iraqi people (Resulting from options 1 and 2 above)

b) Election is held and ran by the United Nations to insure a fair election (Resulting from option 3 above)</blockquote>

:smokin