Iraqi President refusing to sign execution order for one of Saddam's cronies

Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi President, is refusing to sign the execution order for Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister under Saddam Hussein. One interesting tidbit of information is that Talabani is Kurdish, and Tariq Aziz played a key part in the Kurdish genocide during the Gulf War. Talabani cited his socialist beliefs, and Aziz's Catholicism and age as his rationale.

And so now I ask you OT, what are your thoughts on this? Iraq really hasn't been in the news recently (I don't think I even heard about either Iraq or Afghanistan during the election season, which is troubling because the U.S. is still deeply invested in the future of both of these countries), and I personally think this is great news and is a sign of things to come as Iraq continues to transition away from despotism and terrorism.

Interview with President Talabani

Also, to add to the discussion, how much credit should the U.S., and more specifically, the Bush Administration get for a democratic Iraq?

who still says cronies these days:P

but yes indeed ****** up

i would've signed that in a heart beat

Democratic Iraq? Let me ask you a very simple question. How come Iraq isn't democractic since the US invaded in 2003 up until today? the 2003 invasion is the bigest stratigic blunder EVER.

Democratic Iraq? Let me ask you a very simple question. How come Iraq isn't democractic since the US invaded in 2003 up until today? the 2003 invasion is the bigest stratigic blunder EVER.

outworld222

[QUOTE="outworld222"]

Democratic Iraq? Let me ask you a very simple question. How come Iraq isn't democractic since the US invaded in 2003 up until today? the 2003 invasion is the bigest stratigic blunder EVER.

-Sun_Tzu-

Is that chemical ali?

I like seeing an official take a stand against the death penalty, especially considering he has ample motivation to give in to a pathos-driven reaction.

As to your second question, absolutely none at all. The Bush Administration had been trying since day one to get their little crony from that Iraqi independence organization into power, even though Iraqis almost unanimously hated him. Even now that their attempts have finally failed and the Iraqis have elected a leader they like, it's going to be a long struggle back to a stable society. There's really no evidence to say that whenever and however the Iraqis end up at their ideal society that the war got them there in a faster manner, better manner, or was the only way to get them there. Now that we've altered their societal development through the war there's not really any objective way to look back and say either way that democracy would have been possible or impossible without U.S. involvement.

I think that mercy is always a good thing. I suspect that this guy had no choice when he worked for Saddam. It was either do what Saddan says or be killed.

Let's not forget who provided Saddam Hussein with the nerve gas he used against the Kurds ...

... nor who put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place ...

The Devil in the Details: The CIA and Saddam Hussein

Also, to add to the discussion, how much credit should the U.S., and more specifically, the Bush Administration get for a democratic Iraq?

-Sun_Tzu-

Um.....all of it?

Yeah, I'm gonna go with that one. Definitely all of it.

I think that mercy is always a good thing. I suspect that this guy had no choice when he worked for Saddam. It was either do what Saddan says or be killed.

sonicare

The Nuremberg defense, eh?

I think that mercy is always a good thing. I suspect that this guy had no choice when he worked for Saddam. It was either do what Saddan says or be killed.

sonicare