The Iraq thread 3

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

I think you will find that opinion all over Europe. The recent ban on a death penalty in Iraq had alot to do with British pressure.

The British Government doesn't support executions, just as the French and Germans don't.

its been lifted IIRC, one of the freedoms that the new interim Gov't has. The british do not exdradite suspects to countries that have the death penalty and the person being extradited could face it, but seeing as this was an internal handover then that rule becomes null and void, Britain does not support the Death penalty internally and talks to other countries about the reasons why we don't support it, we don't try and change other countries minds about it.

Does it have anything to do with France or Germany what iraq's judicial system is? Why would it be a sign of democratic strength not to reinstate the death penalty? isnt it a sign of democracy that the new Interim Gov't gets to choose what there laws are? Didn't we instate the Death penalty for those responsible for the genocide commited in WWII?

[quicksand 0]

Omar gets quoted by Wofwitz

Quote[/b] ]

BY PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

After a suicide car bombing killed Iraqi Interim Governing Council President Izzedine Salim and eight others on May 17, one Iraqi put that act of terror into a larger perspective for those who wonder if democracy can work in Iraq. His name is Omar, one of the new Iraqi "bloggers," and he wrote on his Web log: "We cannot . . . protect every single person, including our leaders and the higher officials who make favorite targets for the terrorists--but we can make their attempts go in vain by making our leadership 'replaceable.' "

Exercising his newfound freedom of speech via the Internet, Omar addressed what he sees as the terrorists' fundamental misunderstanding about where Iraq is going. Terrorists--whether Saddamists or foreigners--"think in the same way their dictator-masters do," failing to grasp that the idea of leadership by an indispensable strongman applies to totalitarian regimes--not democracies.

That understanding of the stability of representative government was confirmed when council member Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawar assumed the Governing Council presidency. This orderly transfer of leadership showed that the rudiments of a democratic process are already at work in Iraq. The hope for a new Iraq, in which freedom is protected by democracy and the rule of law, rests in such processes.

This hopeful vision is what the enemies of a new Iraq fear the most. Fighting on even after the capture of Saddam Hussein last December, the murderers and torturers of his regime and their terrorist allies, with their perverse ideology of evil, have been seeking with death and destruction to prevent the emergence of a new and free Iraq. In a letter that coalition forces intercepted in January, one of the most notorious of these terrorists, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, wrote to his al Qaeda associates in Afghanistan that democracy in Iraq brings the prospect of "suffocation" for the terrorists, the prospect of Iraqis fighting in their own defense. When the army and police are "linked to the inhabitants of this area by kinship, blood and honor," Zarqawi asks, "how can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans pull back? . . . Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter."

President Bush recently outlined a five-step plan for helping Iraqis move beyond occupation to a fully constitutional government, a government that rejects weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, preserves Iraq's territorial integrity and lives peacefully with its neighbors. The plan involves five interdependent phases to build Iraqis' capacity to manage their own affairs successfully.

The first phase of the president's plan will become effective on June 30, when the Coalition Provisional Authority transfers authority to the Interim Iraqi Government, a body that will consist of a president, two deputy presidents, a prime minister, a deputy prime minister and 31 other cabinet ministers. The members of this new government will have responsibility until elections are held in January 2005 for day-to-day governance and will work as a full partner in providing security to Iraq.

The members of the new government, announced on June 2, were chosen through a process of wide-ranging consultations with the Iraqi people, led by Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, the special adviser on Iraq to the U.N. secretary- general. The new president will be Ghazi al-Yawar, the same man who stepped in to fill the place of the murdered Izzedine Salim. The new prime minister--with principal responsibility for the management of the government--is Dr. Iyad Allawi, a physician and a distinguished opponent of Saddam Hussein for many years, who was once the target of an assassination attempt by Saddam's agents.

The new government is not the old Governing Council in a new form--only four of the old 26-member Governing Council are part of the new government. The new cabinet was described by another Iraqi blogger, this one named Zeyad, as an "impressive" group, including six women ministers, "an unprecedented step in the region." "Iraqis need to be optimistic at such a critical moment," Zeyad added, or else they "will be left behind along with the dark forces that insist on killing more Iraqis and disrupting the new changes."

On the occasion of the announcement of the new government, Dr. Allawi spoke to his "dear brothers and sisters" about building a "true national unity" so that we can "forge ahead toward building a society ruled by law, covered by justice, and equality, freedom and respect for human rights" to build "a civilized advanced Iraq to be enjoyed by all Iraqis."

Dr. Allawi also asked "to record our profound gratitude and appreciation to the U.S.-led coalition, which has made great sacrifices for the liberation of Iraq." Then, breaking from his native Arabic, Dr. Allawi added: "I would like to say this in English. I would like to thank the coalition led by the United States for the sacrifices they have provided in the process of the liberation of Iraq."

After Iraq becomes sovereign on June 30, a new U.S. Embassy in Iraq will open for business on July 1 headed by Ambassador John Negroponte, who will be the representative of the United States to the sovereign government of Iraq. The character of our engagement will change, but our commitment will not. Iraqis will make the decisions about how their country is governed. But we are ready to continue as full partners in helping bring democracy and security to Iraq. During this stage, our focus will rest on supporting Iraq's political transition, equipping and training Iraqi security forces, and helping to set the stage for national elections at the end of the year.

.....................

Over the next few months, our aim is to prepare Iraqi security forces to assume greater responsibilities from coalition forces--allowing Iraqis to take local control of the cities, even as coalition forces move into a supporting role and provide forces only as needed. We will continue the process of integrating Iraqi officers with coalition forces and embedding coalition officers with Iraqis--the sort of mentorship that will continue to develop more capable Iraqi security leaders. To foster a real sense of unity and independence, Iraqi security forces also need an Iraqi rallying point: Iraqis want to take orders from Iraqis. One of the first tasks of the new ministers of defense and interior will be to build Iraqi chains of command. As these command structures fill in, Iraqi security forces will know that fellow Iraqis lead them from the top.

By next January, we expect the Iraqi army to grow from the current six battalions to 27, or approximately 35,000 soldiers. An Iraqi initiative--a special division called the Iraqi National Task Force--is taking form and the first battalion of that force should be on the streets of Baghdad by July. Plans call for the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to reach 45 battalions, or approximately 40,000 personnel, this fall. There are now close to 90,000 serving in the Iraqi police--and tens of thousands more in other Ministry of Interior forces--but many have little or no modern police training. The emphasis in coming months will be to provide the training and the leadership development appropriate for law enforcement in a society that respects the rule of law.

More and more Iraqis seem to feel they can place their trust in their new defense forces. Polls indicate considerable public approval for Iraqi forces even as patience with occupation wears thin. One member of a local district council in Baghdad reflected that sentiment when he said, "Now the people are beginning to understand that [iraqi forces] are serving the country." The Iraqi general who now leads the all-Iraqi Fallujah brigade, Mohammed Abdul-Latif, recently told a gathering of some 40 sheiks, imams and city council members, "[u.S. troops] were brought here by the acts of one coward who was hunted out of a rat hole, Saddam, who disgraced us all. . . . Let us tell our children that [u.S. troops] came here to protect us. . . . We can help them leave by helping them do their job."

Iraqis are doing more than helping. By our own count, which is probably a significant underestimate, nearly 400 Iraqis have died in the past year for the cause of an Iraq free from tyranny and terror. Despite the enemy's attempts to intimidate them, Iraqis continue to step forward in large numbers to defend their country.

However, U.S. and other coalition forces are indispensable to preserve security while Iraqi forces build their strength. To counter the Saddamists and terrorists who are desperately trying to undermine Iraq's transition to democracy, we will keep our troops in place at whatever level is required. Our commanders in Iraq constantly reassess the numbers of troops they need to meet the mission. As we have often said, and as the president reiterated in his recent address to the nation, if our commanders on the ground ask for more troops, they will get more troops.

............

As the principal source of revenue for the new Iraqi government, oil production is another main target of the enemy. In recent months, production reached the prewar level of about 2.4 million barrels a day. Under Saddam, the revenue from that oil production was used to build palaces and weapons; today it is being used to build schools and vaccinate children.

Iraq could reach production levels of three million barrels of oil a day--a level last seen before Desert Storm--and has the potential to go further. Recently, the Iraqi oil minister proposed a reconstitution of Iraq's national oil company, a move that will help facilitate foreign investment and increase Iraqi revenues further.

The entire international community has a stake in Iraq's success. The fourth step in the president's plan involves enlisting additional international support for Iraq's transition to democracy. The U.N. has already played a critical role in forming the Governing Council last summer, with the heroic assistance of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the special representative of the secretary-general, who gave his life in the process. More recently, Ambassador Brahimi has played the key role on behalf of the U.N. secretary- general this spring in the formation of the Interim Government. A U.N. election team has been in Iraq working on facilitating the forthcoming election process. Three unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolutions, in May, August and October of last year, have provided the basis for coalition efforts in Iraq, including the multinational force under U.S. command. Yesterday the Security Council unanimously endorsed the transition timetable adopted by Iraqis and encouraged other U.N. members to add their support.

Thirty-one nations, in addition to the U.S. and Iraq, have troops that are bravely fighting for a free Iraq, and more than 100 of their soldiers have given their lives. Last fall, 70 nations assembled at the Madrid donors conference and pledged billions of dollars to build a new Iraq. The assistance of the international community will continue to be important for helping Iraq stand on its own feet.

The fifth step in the president's plan involves nurturing Iraq's capacity for representative self-government, leading to a constitutional government by the end of 2005.

When day-to-day governing responsibility is transferred on June 30, work will already be under way on the next phase in the process as defined by the Transitional Administrative Law, a kind of interim constitution written by the Iraqis in March. The Interim Government will serve until the end of 2004, when Iraqis will go to the polls to elect representatives for the first freely elected national government in Iraq's history. Ensuring adequate security for elections will be a major challenge and will require the help of Coalition forces. By the end of 2005, Iraqis are scheduled to vote on a new constitution that protects the rights of all of its citizens, of all religious and ethnic groups.

The killers and torturers who kept Saddam in power all these years and their terrorist allies--who also fear a free Iraq--will do everything they can, through terror and violence, to block that progress. They are experts in sowing death and destruction and they should not be underestimated. But they offer nothing positive for the Iraqi people, and the evil they represent is one that few Iraqis want for themselves or their children. By enabling Iraqis to take the lead in the fight for Iraq's future, we will confront the Saddamists and terrorists with the defeat that Zarqawi fears.

Nothing is more important to world security than defeating the forces of evil by nurturing the seeds of freedom--especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our enemies understand that these are now the central battlegrounds in the war on terrorism. But the burden is not ours alone. In a remarkably short time, Iraqi leaders, for all their diversity, have shown that they are learning the arts of political compromise--and that they are dedicated to their country's unity. Now is the moment when Iraqis must rise to the challenge. Now is the time for Iraqis to take the future of Iraq into their own hands.

The blogger Omar's final reflection in the wake of Izzedine Salim's death is a further indication that Iraqis are ready. "Are we sad?" he wrote in his Web log. "Yes of course, but we're absolutely not discouraged because we know our enemies and we decided to go in this battle to the end. . . . I've tasted freedom, my friends, and I'd rather die fighting to preserve my freedom before I find myself trapped in another nightmare of blood and oppression."

Like Omar, we remain committed, as do the brave young Americans in Iraq. And we remain hopeful. Our own history attests to the fact that democracy can be a hard-won prize. But we also know that the goal is worth the fight.

     

From this moment on I declare that nothing shall surprise me from TBA or else I am taking a deadly risk of choking in laughter.

edit:AvonLady looks like your friends made it big after all,they are the source of Wolfwitz speaches.And who said they are not representative for Iraq

[theavonlady 2]

     

From this moment on I declare that nothing shall surprise me from TBA or else I am taking the risk of choking in laughter.

Did you laugh at your own Romanian countrymen when Ceausescu was ruling and Romania had the same dreams?

Or was that before you were born or able to comprehende, who Ceausescu was?

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Did you laugh at your own Romanian countrymen when Ceausescu was ruling and Romania had the same dreams?

All though I was going to use harsher words and give you a history lesson,I am just going to say that comparing the Ceausescu reign and dawnfall with that of Saddam is unrealistic and of low standards.

Just know this,when a Romanian would have told you he wanted Ceusescu booted-he was representative for my nation that`s why they took the streets from north to south to Bucharest to trigger a Revolution and that is why the army turned against him.

But when an Iraqi tells you he wants to be Isreal`s greatest friend and praise US day and night for "liberation" his representative status is far beyond questionable as polls show.

Quote[/b] ]Or was that before you were born or able to comprehende, who Ceausescu was?

It appears you know,that your parents who had advanced studies were unable to get a good job and told you day and night Ceausescu`s story along with history teachers,right?

You are also implying that you have to live decades under dictarioship to understand it,if so you also have no idea what the Iraqis "want" or "need" as you so gracefully suggest times and times again on this thead.

One last thing,what does an internal revolution without foreign intervation(in those times Ceusescu made great friends with the US administation,Nixon was even kind enough to visit our country to show his support) has to do with a war ravaged country,that they didn`t ask for?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Did you laugh at your own Romanian countrymen when Ceausescu was ruling and Romania had the same dreams?

All though I was going to use harsher words and give you a history lesson,I am just going to say that comparing the Ceausescu reign and dawnfall with that of Saddam is unrealistic and of low standards.

Just know this,when a Romanian would have told you he wanted Ceusescu booted-he was representative for my nation that`s why they took the streets from north to south to Bucharest to trigger a Revolution and that is why the army turned against him.

But when an Iraqi tells you he wants to be Isreal`s greatest friend and praise US day and night for "liberation" his representative status is far beyond questionable as polls show.

You bring nothing new here.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Or was that before you were born or able to comprehende, who Ceausescu was?

It appears you know,that your parents who had advanced studies were unable to get a good job and told you day and night Ceausescu`s story along with history teachers,right?

You are also implying that you have to live decades under dictarioship to understand it,if so you also have no idea what the Iraqis "want" or "need" as you so gracefully suggest times and times again on this thead.

No. It means I have no idea how old you are. Nothing more.

Quote[/b] ]One last thing,what does an internal revolution without foreign intervation(in those times Ceusescu made great friends with the US administation,Nixon was even kind enough to visit our country to show his support) has to do with a war ravaged country,that they didn`t ask for?

Before Romania's revolution, were people in seventh heaven with Ceusescu at the helm or did they yearn for freedom even then? Obviously the latter.

The same with the Iraqis, who were under the oppressive rule of Saddam. They never dremaed they would see the day where he would be gone, along with Uday and Qusay and their entire cast of underlings. And now they desire to establish what your country was most fortunate in getting in a much less brutal way.

That's my only point of comparison and that's what I saw you laughing at.

[denoir 0]

I think you will find that opinion all over Europe. The recent ban on a death penalty in Iraq had alot to do with British pressure.

The British Government doesn't support executions, just as the French and Germans don't.

its been lifted IIRC, one of the freedoms that the new interim Gov't has. The british do not exdradite suspects to countries that have the death penalty and the person being extradited could face it, but seeing as this was an internal handover then that rule becomes null and void, Britain does not support the Death penalty internally and talks to other countries about the reasons why we don't support it, we don't try and change other countries minds about it.

Oh really? Watch the news a bit - you've been the loudest and most vocal opponent.

Straw opposing Saddam execution [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The UK is to strongly urge the new Iraqi authorities not to execute Saddam Hussein if he is found guilty of war crimes, Jack Straw has told MPs.

The foreign secretary was asked about reports that Iraq's war crimes tribunal was planning to prosecute Saddam.

He said that Britain would make "very strong representations" that the Iraqis "need not use the death penalty".

.....

And this is not about law. The death penalty - murdering your own citizens - is a human rights violations. Objecting against it is on the same level as objecting to a country torturing prisoners or gassing Kurds and things like that.

[theavonlady 2]

And this is not about law. The death penalty - murdering your own citizens - is a human rights violations.

This is not universlly accepted and therefore it is about law.

[denoir 0]

And this is not about law. The death penalty - murdering your own citizens - is a human rights violations.

This is not universlly accepted and therefore it is about law.

It is according to the UN charter. And if it's universal or not is besides the point. I don't think Saddam thought torture chambers and rape rooms were a human rights violation - does that mean that we had no right commenting on them?

The ultimate irony here of course that a country that invaded a sovereign country is objecting against other countries commenting on the behavior of a puppet regime...

And the third point is that the current Iraqi government is not a legitimate one. It has yet to be internationally recognized (and probably won't be until elections are held).

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]You bring nothing new here.

I am trying to show you the difference between Romanians opinion about the revolution and that of Iraqis concerning the war.

Quote[/b] ]No. It means I have no idea how old you are. Nothing more.

Or was that before you were born or able to comprehende, who Ceausescu was?

Do you understand who Stalin was,or you have to be a 90 years old russian to do so?

Quote[/b] ]Before Romania's revolution, were people in seventh heaven with Ceusescu at the helm or did they yearn for freedom even then? Obviously the latter.

That`s why I wanted to stop there.If you really must know a  majority of romanians suported Ceausescu`s doctrine until the last years of his dictarioship(the intelectuals are in any country a a minority),the standards of life were raising everything was fine and dandy not much of yearning for freedom I would say.

What burried him were the beginning of the 1980s,after a conflict of opinions,Ceausescu decided to pay back all foreign debts accumulated from the industralization and this resulted to electricity,meat,medicine shortages leading to the revolution. History experts today say with half a mouth that if it wasn`t for the 1980 desatrous debt liquidation he could have ruled Romania until the end of his life.

Quote[/b] ]The same with the Iraqis, who were under the oppressive rule of Saddam. They never dremaed they would see the day where he would be gone, along with Uday and Qusay and their entire cast of underlings. And now they desire to establish what your country was most fortunate in getting in a much less brutal way.

If it would have been the first time I got in touch with Iraq situation I would have thought from this part that TBA was a night in shining armor coming in Iraq out of human intrests to save the popluation from Saddam`s opression.

Nothing of the sorts of a 1991 a broken promise to support a Shia rebellion that left tens of thousands dead.Or the fact that 95% of the Iraqis consider US military an occupation force and a clear majority also suport attacks against them.Not even the fact that the number one reason for war was disarming Saddam of WMD.Or that even the Shia uprised..Or...

And that`s the difference between an internal revolution and an unpopular war started by US that the Iraqis never wanted(i.e a revolution for the Iraqis could have been a great developing but not with a 12 months US occupation in the equation)

[Balschoiw 0]

Another interesting US-Iraq historical thing is that during the Iraq-Iran war the USA supported both sides with intel. Of course they didn´t take any favourite side so they supported both with enough intel to keep up the war but didn´t enable any side to win the war.

The USA doesn´t have a reputation in Iraq. That´s nothing new. It´s based on the experiences the Iraqis have made with the USA long before Iraq war 2.

A lot of people died because of the tactical games the USA played in this country long before this war.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Polish troops have found 17 mustard gas warheads in Iraq. (from the 80ies)

german press, der spiegel

[ralphwiggum 6]

Did not a certain person tell Bush not to meddle in EU....Chirac you are weird man....I wonder if Saddam has secrets about Chirac...people talk....

i know! now Bush is also asking France and Germany to help with Iraq reconstruction! why chould France and Germany meddling around there?

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

I think you will find that opinion all over Europe. The recent ban on a death penalty in Iraq had alot to do with British pressure.

The British Government doesn't support executions, just as the French and Germans don't.

its been lifted IIRC, one of the freedoms that the new interim Gov't has. The british do not exdradite suspects to countries that have the death penalty and the person being extradited could face it, but seeing as this was an internal handover then that rule becomes null and void, Britain does not support the Death penalty internally and talks to other countries about the reasons why we don't support it, we don't try and change other countries minds about it.

Oh really? Watch the news a bit - you've been the loudest and most vocal opponent.

Straw opposing Saddam execution [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The UK is to strongly urge the new Iraqi authorities not to execute Saddam Hussein if he is found guilty of war crimes, Jack Straw has told MPs.

The foreign secretary was asked about reports that Iraq's war crimes tribunal was planning to prosecute Saddam.

He said that Britain would make "very strong representations" that the Iraqis "need not use the death penalty".

.....

And this is not about law. The death penalty - murdering your own citizens - is a human rights violations. Objecting against it is on the same level as objecting to a country torturing prisoners or gassing Kurds and things like that.

Yea thats exactly what i said, we are not trying to change there laws by force or threatening them by any means, we are urging them to consider not using the death penalty.

The death penalty is about LAW, nothing more nothing less, if you commit a crime that deserves the death penalty, you are then tried, if found guilty then face the consequences.

Im guessing by that attitude the Nazi's who were tried after WWII should probally never been killed via the death penalty right?

[denoir 0]

Yea thats exactly what i said, we are not trying to change there laws by force or threatening them by any means, we are urging them to consider not using the death penalty.

No you:

Quote[/b] ]

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>strongly urge the new Iraqi authorities not to execute Saddam Hussein</span>

Where did you get the word "consider"? And that statement is far stronger than Germany's and France's statements.

Quote[/b] ]The death penalty is about LAW, nothing more nothing less, if you commit a crime that deserves the death penalty, you are then tried, if found guilty then face the consequences.

So you support torture chamber and rape rooms. Or why not gas chambers? It's only LAW after all, right?

Quote[/b] ]Im guessing by that attitude the Nazi's who were tried after WWII should probally never been killed via the death penalty right?

If they had been tried today, then they should not.

Personally I would not care if they dropped Saddam off a plane, but it would be a terrible start for the new Iraq to resume with human rights abuses.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Where did you get the word "consider"? And that statement is far stronger than Germany's and France's statements.

Quote[/b] ]The death penalty is about LAW, nothing more nothing less, if you commit a crime that deserves the death penalty, you are then tried, if found guilty then face the consequences.

So you support torture chamber and rape rooms. Or why not gas chambers? It's only LAW after all, right?

Quote[/b] ]Im guessing by that attitude the Nazi's who were tried after WWII should probally never been killed via the death penalty right?

If they had been tried today, then they should not.

Personally I would not care if they dropped Saddam off a plane, but it would be a terrible start for the new Iraq to resume with human rights abuses.

Thats always been our line before, but tbh i aint even watched, read or listened to the news 2day, So its much stronger we are not imposing our will on them.

No i don't support rape rooms or gas chambers, there is a difference between what saddam did and what will happen to him if he is convicted and sentenced to death, Many countries apply the Death penalty in Extreme Cases, now i think in his case the Death penalty is just, the crimes he has commited imho and it seems the interim Government's he deserves to die, most Iraqi's want to see justice, to them him rotting in jail will do nothing to alley there fears, If he is fairly trialed and the outcome is death then so be it, bye bye saddam, Saddam has a chance to defend his actions unlike those who were victims when he was in control.

Why is it a human rights abuse to be sentenced to death for genocide? really explain and justify to me why.

[denoir 0]

Why is it a human rights abuse to be sentenced to death for genocide? really explain and justify to me why.

Becuase murdering your own citizens is morally wrong.

Quote[/b] ]So its much stronger we are not imposing our will on them.

You are by saying that you "strongly urge them not to execute Saddam", which you can imagine bears some weight when you have OCCUPIED their country and have your well-armed troops there. What France and Germany said was that they "Hoped that the interrim Iraqi governemnet would reconsider" because it would "not send a good signal to the Iraqi people". You can expect a much stronger EU statement anytime soon.

Quote[/b] ]Many countries apply the Death penalty in Extreme Cases

Yeah, it's a grand list of all the countries that are known for their fair and humane treatement of people

Quote[/b] ]

Afghanistan

Antigua and Barbuda

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belarus

Belize

Botswana

Burundi

Cameroon

Chad

China (People's Republic)

Comoros

Congo (Democratic Republic)

Cuba

Dominica

Egypt

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Ghana

Guatemala

Guinea

Guyana

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Jamaica

Japan

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Korea, North

Korea, South

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Lebanon

Lesotho

Liberia

Libya

Malawi

Malaysia

Mongolia

Morocco

Myanmar

Nigeria

Oman

Pakistan

Palestinian Authority

Philippines

Qatar

Rwanda

St. Kitts and Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Saudi Arabia

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Somalia

Sudan

Swaziland

Syria

Taiwan

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

Uganda

United Arab Emirates

United States of America

Uzbekistan

Vietnam

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Why is it a human rights abuse to be sentenced to death for genocide? really explain and justify to me why.

Becuase murdering your own citizens is morally wrong.

Quote[/b] ]So its much stronger we are not imposing our will on them.

You are by saying that you "strongly urge them not to execute Saddam", which you can imagine bears some weight when you have OCCUPIED their country and have your well-armed troops there. What France and Germany said was that they "Hoped that the interrim Iraqi governemnet would reconsider" because it would "not send a good signal to the Iraqi people". You can expect a much stronger EU statement anytime soon.

Quote[/b] ]Many countries apply the Death penalty in Extreme Cases

Yeah, it's a grand list of all the countries that are known for their fair and humane treatement of people

Quote[/b] ]

Afghanistan

Antigua and Barbuda

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belarus

Belize

Botswana

Burundi

Cameroon

Chad

China (People's Republic)

Comoros

Congo (Democratic Republic)

Cuba

Dominica

Egypt

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Ghana

Guatemala

Guinea

Guyana

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Jamaica

Japan

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Korea, North

Korea, South

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Lebanon

Lesotho

Liberia

Libya

Malawi

Malaysia

Mongolia

Morocco

Myanmar

Nigeria

Oman

Pakistan

Palestinian Authority

Philippines

Qatar

Rwanda

St. Kitts and Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Saudi Arabia

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Somalia

Sudan

Swaziland

Syria

Taiwan

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

Uganda

United Arab Emirates

United States of America

Uzbekistan

Vietnam

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

o its morally wrong now, so is genocide. you now my position, this is a difference of opinion between each other, we are not going to change each others view, lets see how the trial pans out, it probally wont start till after the elections in january.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Murder is when you take the life of an innocent. Saddam isn't innocent.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Polish troops have found 17 mustard gas warheads in Iraq. (from the 80ies)

something to add:

The shells were bought by polish troops, not found.

They have been made between 1981 and 1988.

The probes have shown that they contain something like mustard gas, but not mustard gas.

Anyway these are just some other relicts of the Iran/Iraq war, but don´t fortify the US WMD thesis.

[denoir 0]

o its morally wrong now, so is genocide. you now my position, this is a difference of opinion between each other, we are not going to change each others view, lets see how the trial pans out, it probally wont start till after the elections in january.

You are missing the point. We're not debating if the death penalty is right or wrong.

The point is that the EU, which includes Britain, France and Germany considers the death penalty a human rights violation (as defined in both the European Human Rights Charter and the UN Human Rights Charter). Hence they not only have a right to comment on it; they have an obligation to do so.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

o its morally wrong now, so is genocide. you now my position, this is a difference of opinion between each other, we are not going to change each others view, lets see how the trial pans out, it probally wont start till after the elections in january.

You are missing the point. We're not debating if the death penalty is right or wrong.

The point is that the EU, which includes Britain, France and Germany considers the death penalty a human rights violation (as defined in both the European Human Rights Charter and the UN Human Rights Charter). Hence they not only have a right to comment on it; they have an obligation to do so.

One minor point, the EU can comment on it till they go blue in the face, Iraq aint in the EU.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]One minor point, the EU can comment on it till they go blue in the face, Iraq aint in the EU.

Nope. And I am not in your family. But if you suddenly started executing people, I would comment to.

[denoir 0]

One minor point, the EU can comment on it till they go blue in the face, Iraq aint in the EU.

While technically true, Iraq has to pay attention to what the EU says if it wants for instance its old loans written off and if it wants new loans, trade agreements etc. They're not on equal footing so to say.

Also a minor point is that the country is still occupied by troops from some of the EU countries, which has some consequences.

Did you see the article that Quicksand posted about US troops disarming Iraqi police officers after they were beating prisoners? It is a far more direct violation of the sovereignty of Iraq than making comments about their legal system.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Quote[/b] ]One minor point, the EU can comment on it till they go blue in the face, Iraq aint in the EU.

Nope. And I am not in your family. But if you suddenly started executing people, I would comment to.

Ah again a minor point, Im not on trial for genoicide. also i doubt it was a off the cuff desicion to reinstate the Death Penalty.

[Frisbee 0]

Murder is when you take the life of an innocent. Saddam isn't innocent.

Right...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder

Quote[/b] ]mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (műrdr)

n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.

3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

I'll probably be slapped around the face with 'unlawful' bolded out and talking about this would be lawful. But yeah, whatever.

Killing Saddam won't bring anyone back to life, I hope Iraq won't stay on the list of countries who feel justice can only be done by retribution.

But then again, it is up to the people who have had to suffer under Saddam to decide. Who knows, they might decide that they are better than him and incarcerate him instead of executing him...

Quote[/b] ]One minor point, the EU can comment on it till they go blue in the face, Iraq aint in the EU.

What point do you speak of? You're just saying something everyone knows already?