| Dec 29, 2006 @ 2:42 AM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
There seemed to be some confusion as to two particular issues. The first being the nature of the Tribunal that tried and convicted Saddam Hussein. It is not a US puppet kangaroo court, rather a uniquely Iraqi instrument.
Here is some information on it
The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (formerly known as the Iraqi Special Tribunal) is a body established under Iraqi national law to try Iraqi nationals or residents accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or other serious crimes committed between 1968 and 2003.
The Tribunal follows the inquisitorial system which is standard in Iraq and uses investigative judges. Trials are heard before a panel of the five Trial Judges, who conduct hearings, pronounce judgements and impose the sentences, without using a jury.
Judges were initially appointed to a five-year term by the Iraqi Governing Council, in consultation with the Iraqi Judicial Council.
The normal principle of international law, however, has been to rely first on the domestic national court capability of a country before turning to the extraordinary creation of international tribunals. Some Iraqis as well view the Tribunal as a matter of pride and sovereignty with the view that they can govern and judge themselves.
There was also some confusion as to US support for Saddam Hussein. The US, contrary to what many think, did not supply the bulk of his weapons, rather, they didn't even supply one percent of them.
Here are some figures. With some minimal searching, other sources will tell you the same thing.
Soviet Union - 30301 68.9%
France - 5595 12.7%
China - 5192 11.8%
Eqypt - 568 1.3%
USA - 200 0.5%
Others - 2104 4.8%
|
|
  |
|
| Dec 29, 2006 @ 3:12 AM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
waterfire
Posts: 2,946
|
I could care less if a tribunal or not, the guy should hang 
I just wish we would have gone after him in the 80s 
|
| |
|
| Dec 29, 2006 @ 12:19 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
gyspydreamer
Posts: 403
|
It is only those who want to try to blame the US for any and everything that goes wrong in the world that are trying to say that this is a US orchestrated event. And all this hooey about whether or not he should be hung, just plain hooey. He should actually die the same way he most cruely put his victims to death.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 29, 2006 @ 12:25 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,907
|
He should actually die the same way he most cruely put his victims to death. His being buried alive works for me.
|
| |
|
| Dec 29, 2006 @ 12:31 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
graywolf
Posts: 44,535
|
I would help fill the hole Jankia.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 29, 2006 @ 2:41 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
eastham
Posts: 7,913
|
The paragraph you did not include in your quote is illustrative:
The Tribunal was set up by a specific Statute issued under the Coalition Provisional Authority and now reaffirmed under the jurisdiction of the Iraqi Interim Government. The Transitional Administrative Law [TAL] promulgated by the Iraq Governing Council before the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty preserves and continues the Iraq Special Tribunal Statute in force and effect.
I did hear a very interesting discussion on the public radio this afternoon and it had to do with whether or not it is too late for the Iraqi government to institute a type of special "truth" commission like what was used in South Africa and Sierra Leone, after its civil war.
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 1:16 AM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
Eastham
The paragraph you did not include in your quote is illustrative:
'The' paragraph? How about one of about a hundred I did not include as it means little to the argument. Here, I'll explain;
The US invades and sets up the Coalition Provisional Authority
the CPA vested itself with executive, legislative, and judicial authority over the Iraqi government from the period of the CPA's inception on April 21, 2003, until its dissolution on June 28, 2004.
It also sets up this tribuanal.
Then, the Iraqi Interim Government is installed until elections can take place.
The Iraqi Interim Government was created by the United States and its coalition allies as a caretaker government to govern Iraq until the Iraqi Transitional Government was installed following the Iraqi National Assembly election conducted on January 30, 2005.
Then, we have the Iraqi Transitional Government
On April 28 it was approved by the transitional Iraqi National Assembly, which had been elected in January 2005. It operated under the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, and its main functions were to draft a permanent Constitution of Iraq and to form a transitional government.
In effect, a logical transition has taken place with elections and candidates running. Throughout this period, the Tribunal, which was begun with the Coalition Provisional Authority has remained and, as time went on, the power to do away with or strenghten it has been given to the Iraqi people's elected representatives. As I am sure you are aware, Iraq enjoyed a 65% participation in the electorial process hence, the government it has now is an elected one with the power to do away with this tribuanal if they wish. Hence, while it was begun as a Coalition entity, it is now a uniquely Iraqi one.
EasthamI did hear a very interesting discussion on the public radio this afternoon and it had to do with whether or not it is too late for the Iraqi government to institute a type of special "truth" commission like what was used in South Africa and Sierra Leone, after its civil war.
Sounds interesting. Tell me more please.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 1:19 AM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
SunBabe
Posts: 12,279
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 11:16 AM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
dixiepixie
Posts: 869
|
Nova In effect, a logical transition has taken place with elections and candidates running. .
Information I found seems to support that and I agree.
..............."The Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), established by the United States Government following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, was intended to act as a caretaker administration in Iraq until the creation of a democratically elected civilian government"..................
The disbanding of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance came about when the Coalition Provisional Authority was created.
............."Citing UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws of war, the CPA vested itself with executive, legislative, and judicial authority over the Iraqi government from the period of the CPA's inception on April 21, 2003, until its dissolution on June 28, 2004"...............
LINK
.................."With U.S. and others' assistance, Iraqis have taken control of government institutions at the national and subnational levels. National ministries are providing some services to citizens as their facilities are being rebuilt, reforms are being introduced, and their staffs trained. According to the head of the now-dissolved CPA, all ministries were under Iraqi authority as of the transfer of power on June 28, 2004".....................
MEMBER NATIONS LINK
The countries that contributed to the Coalition Provisional Authority:
Africa
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Asia
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Japan
Kazakhstan
Republic of Korea
Mongolia
Philippines
Uzbekistan
Turkey
Australia
Australia
Europe (18 out of 55)
Albania
Armenia
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Republic of Macedonia
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Slovenia
Spain
United Kingdom
North America
El Salvador
Nicaragua
United States
South America
Colombia
LINK IRAQ ELECTORAL FACT SHEET
Why did the UN become involved in the electoral preparations?
At the request of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) the United Nations was requested to assist in the formulation of the electoral system for Iraq . Between March and May 2004, the UN undertook wide ranging discussions with political, academic, religious and social actors throughout Iraq , as well as the Electoral Committee of the IGC.
How many political entities have been certified?
223 Political entities and 34 coalitions are taking part in January's elections. In total, approximately 18,900 candidates make up the lists, of which 7785 are running for the 275 seats of the National Assembly, and 463 for the 111 seats of the Kurdistan National Assembly.
Electoral Observation
Several international electoral observer delegations have been accredited with a total of 122 international observers to observe the process. As, if not more important however, is the role of national observers and political agents. In this regard, 18,052 national observers and 23,015 party agents have been accredited as of 25 January to observe the election.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 12:39 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
12knots
Posts: 6,400
|
Same old rhetoric and nothing different from the other threads.
The Postings are argument from Wikipedia.
Try to find argument from reliable reports that are free from bias and connection with interested parties that are decidedly trying to make a claim on their own behalf.
Then you may have a case for your "beliefs".
Otherwise this is just another argumentative thread with no useful purpose.
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 12:46 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
12knots
Try to find argument from reliable reports that are free from bias and connection with interested parties that are decidedly trying to make a claim on their own behalf.
How about you provide a breakdown showing the arms sales with the US being at the top as you contend? 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 1:14 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
12knots
Posts: 6,400
|
This topic has already been covered in other threads. It has been argued to death. The threads have reports, issues and everything else.
Dragging them up again is of no value but a waste of space on the server.
All that will happen is the same reports and sources of information willbe posted again and again.
POINTLESS.
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 1:24 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
Thank you for conceeding. 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 1:50 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
12knots
Posts: 6,400
|
Sorry..... ?
I don't conceed. This Thread is nonsense. Go read the other Posts and if you wish to drag up the same topics again then add your points to them there.
Dont you think it would be more logical?
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 2:05 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
12knots
I don't conceed. This Thread is nonsense. Go read the other Posts and if you wish to drag up the same topics again then add your points to them there.
Well you had a problem comming up with an argument there as well so let's just keep it here thanks.
Here is how it was covered
Your argument was destroyed remember?
Knots
Again, this has been covered in other threads. In dollar amounts and type of weaponry with the political cries of the times does show that the US played the major role.
Yes this has been covered in other threads and no matter the evidence presented that the U S was NOT the major supplier of weapons to Iraq there are the few who continue to make the accusation. See Page 8 of MatchDoctor thread: LINK - Who Killed a Million Children and Why? pfftt..... begun by 8knots From one of the posts: ........"Expurgated portions of Iraq's December 7 report to the UN Security Council show that German firms made up the bulk of suppliers for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs"...... Posts # 6, 7, 10, and 11 from the top of the page shows that the United States was NOT the largest supplier of weapons to Iraq. These posts go into quite a bit of detail as to exactly which companies in which countries supplied weapons. They also contain links to show where the information was obtained.
And, you have yet to produce a factual argument, resorting instead to simply bashing every source put in front of you. Heck of a way to start a new year, on the factual defensive.
[Edited on 1/1/2007 2:08 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 2:08 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
dixiepixie
Posts: 869
|
12knots
The Postings are argument from Wikipedia.
First I want to say that the "Iraq Electoral Fact Sheet" Link is a U N link.
http://www.un.org/news/dh/infocus/iraq/election-fact-sht.htm
Now don't pass out from shock 12knots, but I somewhat have to agree with you on the "Wikipedia" part. I don't dismiss information from Wikipedia out of hand. However, I do feel information in that particular source may have more opportunity to be slanted than not to be slanted, in one direction or the other. And the opportunity for contributors to slant information works from all perspectives and outlooks on a topic. As a result, I do feel that info from Wikipedia definitely warrants further checking.
I did try to use information from Wikipedia that gave data that can easily be checked out such as the list of nations involved in the Coalition Provisional Authority and the timeline of creation and dissolution of the agencies as well as turnover of power to Iraqi's. I believe there is less opportunity to slant those sorts of facts because they can be checked out.
12knots
Try to find argument from reliable reports that are free from bias and connection with interested parties that are decidedly trying to make a claim on their own behalf.
I believe every source of information has its own slant based upon the author or sponsoring organization's perspective. Some sources of information may hold themselves to a stricter standard than others, but in the end I don't believe you can find many, if any, that is completely free of bias. But I do have to agree that some sources are very noticeably and outrageously slanted.
12knots
Then you may have a case for your "beliefs".
I'm convinced I already have a case for my beliefs.
12knots
Otherwise this is just another argumentative thread with no useful purpose. This topic has already been covered in other threads. It has been argued to death. POINTLESS. This Thread is nonsense.
You may not see value in this thread but I do. Why can't we leave it up to the individual member to decide whether they want to open a thread?
ALSO, whether the individual member wants to have decision making powers in selecting the thread in which they wish to share an opinion or information OR have YOU select it for them by limiting their choices?
Edited: Ooops made a boo boo with 12knots name in one of my comments
[Edited on 1/1/2007 2:27 PM]
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 2:28 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
12knots
Posts: 6,400
|
There are no problems in my arguments. The facts remain as well as all the reports from reputable sources. Go read them.
It is absolutely pointless to drag them all up again.
Argumentative folly.
I must laugh because despite what ever you wish to drag up, the facts will remain. You cant try to appease yourselves or cover up the mistakes and stupidty that has been done.
People, historians and organizations will debate the issues in generations to come. In fact it started from the point the first mistakes were done.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 7:26 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
violette1967
Posts: 430
|
I believe every source of information has its own slant based upon the author or sponsoring organization's perspective. Some sources of information may hold themselves to a stricter standard than others, but in the end I don't believe you can find many, if any, that is completely free of bias. But I do have to agree that some sources are very noticeably and outrageously slanted.
This is by far the best quote I have read in the political forums. 
Why do some people have a different view? Because there is questionable evidence, morals, findings...etc. in this whole Iraq fiasco. If there were not, you would have nothing to discuss.
While we did not directly put the Iraqi tribunal or government in place...we support the new management, court and everything that surrounds Iraq. We made this change possible...therefore we are held responsible IF there is ever a doubt about having done the right or wrong thing.
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 11:33 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
12knots It is absolutely pointless to drag them all up again.
No it's not. You say you are right yet have no proof. And, when proof is presented to you, you say it is not good enough then fall back into the 'it has already been covered in another thread' sort of thing. Here is what you said;
In dollar amounts and type of weaponry with the political cries of the times does show that the US played the major role.
When presented with wilkpedia, the overwhelming proof is not good enough for you even though they got their informaton from SIPRI. So, I take it that the Stockholm Institute's report may be acceptable as well? If that is the case then I really don't know what else could possibly change your perception of who you think supplied the most weapons to Iraq.
Countries # Weapons % Total
USSR 25145 57
France 5595 13
China 5192 12
Czechoslovakia 2880 7
Poland 1681 4
Brazil 724 2
Egypt 568 1
Romania 524 1
Denmark 226 1
Libya 200 1
USA 200 1
South Africa 192 0
Austria 190 0
Switzerland 151 0
Yugoslavia 107 0
Germany 84 0
Italy 84 0
UK 79 0
Hungary 30 0
Spain 29 0
East Germany 25 0
Canada 7 0
Jordan 2 0
Total 43915 100
So, still think that In dollar amounts and type of weaponry with the political cries of the times does show that the US played the major role. ?
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 1, 2007 @ 11:55 PM |
Two Points about the US and Iraq |
|
RareQuestor
Posts: 2,652
|
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that nearly all of the arms sales occurred during the climax of the Cold War in the 1980's--which also happened to coincide with the Iraq-Iran war. The Soviet Union (and its client states in the East Bloc) provided the majority of the weapons in order to gain influence and access to Iraq's oil. That was one reason why America was able to defeat the Iraqi military during the first Gulf War: Our military was thoroughly familiar with the weapons manufactured by the Soviets since we had trained to fight them for nearly forty years. The circumstances should always be borne in mind even if that in itself does not justify either the actions or the consequences.
|
| |
|
|
|
|