With the threats of violence in the first "free" elections, would you risk it?

I think that I would . . . but really, who knows? I certainly do not have to put up with the idea of being blown up for voting . . .

I am unsure as well, and thankful. I mean, does anyone over there believe that elections will change things? Stop the violence? It is easy to say 'I ain't letting them intimidate me," but intimidation and getting that ass blown to smithereens are different animals altogether.

As much as I would like to think that I would stick my neck out there and go do it, I find it is often foolish to claim that you know exactly how you would react in a hypothetical situation that is so heavily influenced by much more than principle.

I don't think I'd vote. Aside from the danger, these people don't really know much about the candidates running, do they? "It might as well be the Bush appointee that wins," would be my attitude.

Voting won't matter until the US military actually leaves the country. From what I know, the US is setting up permanent military bases in the country which means it doesn't really matter who you vote for and the violence will remain stable or increase. As long as we stay in the country, it's not theirs. Another factor is that the general population over there knows that the oil is not going to be theirs, so the insurgents have even more of a reason to keep blowing shit up.

I guess to answer the question, I would probably make a decision at the last minute. If anything I'd cast a vote, even if it ends up simply symbolic, for the most democratic non-US-backed candidate. I think if people voted for Iyad Allawi, it would basically be voting for the CIA.

Ditto - you said everything I wanted to say.