Talk:President of Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Franks, Garner, Bremer

THis article isn't consistent with the infobox in Saddam Hussein about who his successor was. That page explicitly lists Jay Garner has his successor in an office that roughly replaced the Presidency. In turn that lists Bremer, although Bremer's successor is listed as PM Alawi. I think both for consistency and completeness this article should explicitly list Garner and probably Bremer (in a two-entry special box, immediately following Saddam). The pattern of listing the on-the-spot guy (the de facto ruler, at least in day-to-day matters) of an occupied territory, colony, or protectorate is one we've followed in articles like President of India (which lists the post-independence Governors General), and Governor of the Falkland Islands (which lists the Argentinian and then British generals who were the de facto rulers of that territory during the 1982 war). I don't believe that doing so constitutes our making a POV assertion about the lawfulness of Garner's rule, the truth or otherwise of Saddam's claim to still be the President, or whether Iraq during that period constitutes a colony, protectorate, or whatever.

Hmm, on looking at 2003 invasion of Iraq, it says "General Tommy Franks assumed control of Iraq", and indeed he was the military governor (for want of a better word) during Garner's and Bremer's administrations, until June 28th 2004. I guess he was the de facto total ruler for a period until Garner was appointed, and I think he served in the military-governor capacity until 28/6/04.

So, I think I'm proposing:

1. that the period between Saddam and the State Presidents of Iraq should have not one but three columns
2. that the left column should run the entire duration of the period, and be Tommy Franks
3. that the middle column run for almost the entire duration, and list Garner and Bremer
4. that thr right column list the Presidents of the Interim Governming Council (what we have now)

This is, a bit, like what we do for List of monarchs of Great Britain

Does this sound like a good, or even a sane, idea? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

hmm, not sure. They were never Presidents of Iraq, per se - more of an interregnum between presidents. I'm not sure what they do elsewhere. It might be better to have the entire occupation as a single entry, or alternatively list teh State Presidents as the successor to Hussein. AndrewRT 12:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird Page

I've never seen a page like this. There's like 50 sections for external links! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.0.169.220 (talk • contribs).

yeah this page has been a victim of vandalization. somebody copied and pasted the main body over and over again. Penfish

I don't understand what you mean. Mine has only three external links. Is your page not displaying it right? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State Presidents ?

This section should be divided into Transitional Presidents (Yawer & Talabani) and State Presidents (Talabani: April 22, 2006 to present). Yawer was never a State President. GoodDay 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Make that 'State President' Talabani: April 7, 2005 to the present. GoodDay 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be a seperate article fo State President of Iraq. GoodDay 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm not sure. I would prefer to have all the non-monarchal heads of state of Iraq kept together - that's what it's like for most other countries. See also Presidents of France for an example of another country where an office that had many different powers is lumped together in one article. Have you got an example of a country whose article is organised in the way you would like to see this one done? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

President of South Africa and State President of South Africa, are the examples. GoodDay 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a look and I'm not sure these two articles divide up very neatly. Most of the information in State President of South Africa seems to be repeated in President of South Africa, particularly the list. Who would you like to split out as a State President of Iraq - just Talabani? Where would Saddam & pre-Saddam go?AndrewRT(Talk) 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All those before Talabani, would go in President of Iraq. The State President of Iraq page, would list only Talabani. The big difference between the 2 offices is - the former was an executive office, Head of State & Government (or should we say? dictatorship), the latter is mainly a 'ceromonial' office, Head of State only, (with the Prime-Minister running the government). I see your point though, it might be difficult to seperate information from these two. GoodDay 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the idea of splitting the article but I'm not sure there would be much point for one person. Granted a President has a very different role in a Presidential system like the USA to their role in a Parliamentary system like in Italy - see diagram below. It's interesting to see what appears to be attempts by Talabani's to move Iraq towards a Semi-presidential system (see his interesting comments at Government_of_Iraq_from_2006#President) - notwithstanding the provisions of the constitution. Taking your argument further, surely Yawar was also a non-executive role under the TAL like Talabani. How would the IGC presidents fit in - they had no executive power either, although for them that was because the exec power was with the CPA at the time. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, you're right. GoodDay 22:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

States currently utilizing parliamentary systems are denoted in red and orange—the former being constitutional monarchies where authority is vested in a parliament, and the latter being parliamentary republics whose parliaments are effectively supreme over a separate head of state.

[edit] Hussein post invasion

During the trial of Saddam Hussein from 2004-2006, Hussein often referred to himself as "Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq", despite the fact he had been overthrown. However, some international law scholars and critics of the U.S. invasion of Iraq argued that under international law, Hussein was still legally the President of Iraq even though he no longer was in power. Under international law, a head of state can lose his position only by actions undertaken by the indigenous people of that nation; e.g. defeat in a popular election, or a military coup. Since the Iraqi people did not take action against Hussein or demand his resignation as did the Indonesian people with Suharto in 1998, it was not considered valid that he lost his status. Hussein's removal from office was a result of the US invasion, which may also be questionable under international law as to its legitimacy.

This seems to be unattributed personal opinions which is not particularly relevant to this article. The subject is adequately covered in Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and elsewhere. Can I delete? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're to give legitimacy to Saddam Hussein claims, then during this time period Iraq would've had 2 concurrent Presidents. If the American invasion didn't end his unelected Presidency, the new Iraqi Constitution did. Hussein's Presidency ended in April 2003. GoodDay 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)