[ambush]

One of the value of democracy is: "la tenue d'�lections libres" which (roughly) translates to.... having free elections to decide who will run the country.

Now what is freedom? It's the ability to make a choice w/o any fear of repression.

The questions is: are the Iraqis free? No they are NOT. They *cannot* make free choices because their nation is plagued with problems of imperialism and terrorism.

If elections happen, the result will not be truly valid.

This is probably what will happen: People won't go out and vote because of the terrorists.

Security will probably be available in the rich-ass counties and rich-ass Iraqis will vote for the pro-american.

Anyway. Elections in Iraq? The worst idea ever, if the situation keeps getting worse (like it does right now), the elections will truly be a joke.

would YOU go out and vote? I know I wouldn't.

[vmarks]

Look to Afghanistan as an example- they had relatively small amounts of incidents and the people came out to vote in defiance of any threat or fear.

If people choose to withdraw themselves from the vote, that doesn't render the vote invalid on its own.

If your argument is that Iraq cannot hold a legitimate vote because it isn't "free", aren't you creating a chicken-egg problem that says they cannot have elections because they aren't free, and can't be free because they can't have valid-in-your-eyes elections?

Read what the Iraqis themselves are saying about it. They're looking forward to it, even with prediction and observation of some problems: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/arch...96725726936515

[ambush]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Look to Afghanistan as an example- they had relatively small amounts of incidents and the people came out to vote in defiance of any threat or fear.

If people choose to withdraw themselves from the vote, that doesn't render the vote invalid on its own.

If your argument is that Iraq cannot hold a legitimate vote because it isn't "free", aren't you creating a chicken-egg problem that says they cannot have elections because they aren't free, and can't be free because they can't have valid-in-your-eyes elections?

Read what the Iraqis themselves are saying about it. They're looking forward to it, even with prediction and observation of some problems: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/arch...96725726936515

Is Iraq free? No. Therefore Iraqis cannot make free choices. Bam. It stops there.

[budster101]

Originally posted by ambush:
Is Iraq free? No. Therefore Iraqis cannot make free choices. Bam. It stops there.

Was Germany free after Hitler decided on his own exit strategy? Yes, but there were still loyalists to the swastika after he was gone. It's time for this to happen for the Iraqis, and if it isn't now then when? Freedom has to begin somewhere, and it isn't going to be perfect. In time, just like with my own country in the beginning, it will prosper and grow.

I wonder if Clinton had done this, would you have begun this thread?

Bam - It doesn't stop here, and what exactly do you mean by that? You begin a thread, and vmarks replies with consideration and thought provoking remarks, and you attempt to shut him down?

I say, Iraq is free, and filled with insurgents from other countries who wish to affect the outcome of their free election. Where in history has this been done in a 'free' society? Just look at Spain? Are they 'free'? After all, terrorists did affect their election to their favor, so I would then submit that Spain is not free according to your definition.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by budster101:
Was Germany free after Hitler decided on his own exit strategy? Yes, but there were still loyalists to the swastika after he was gone.

can't say this often enough, iraq is nothing like germany was after ww2.

first of all there was virtually NO resistance after ww2 and secondly, there wasn't this massive international 'problem' with terrorism, oil and pnac imperialism. no, this is something completely different.

iraq has a puppet govt. and there is just enough stability for international corps to profit for now (monsanto, halliburten etc.)

i just feel sorry for the iraqi people. it's really going to suck for them...

[budster101]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
can't say this often enough, iraq is nothing like germany was after ww2.

first of all there was virtually NO resistance after ww2 and secondly, there wasn't this massive international 'problem' with terrorism, oil and pnac imperialism. no, this is something completely different.

iraq has a puppet govt. and there is just enough stability for international corps to profit for now (monsanto, halliburten etc.)

i just feel sorry for the iraqi people. it's really going to suck for them...

I disagree with you and quite frankly so does history. There was a US occupation in Germany for, well we are still there. Why do you think we are still in Germany still? This is a discussion of the free elections for a nation that was just freed from a tyrant, and really has nothing to do with your conspiracy theories.

The Iraqi people are already far better off now than they have been for the past 20 years. I 'm happy for them. Other rogue nations in the middle east are going to feel sorry if this free election is held and succeeds as they have the most to lose here, and nobody else.

I'm quite shocked at your response and lack of knowledge of history. It seems from reading it, you would prefer this to fall apart at the seems and then have an opportunity to have a Democrat in the Whitehouse again. I base this on reading other posts of yours.

Here are a few links I found that might bring this subject into perspective for you and other like-thinkers.

The first is from Newsmax, and I understand this group is right-leaning, but do not impeach the source, just try to impeach the information contained.

"The president declared victory over a year ago, but terrorists continue to pick off U.S. troops and even American civilians at the rate of three per day.

The maniacal dictator may be long gone, but his hard-core followers continue to wreak havoc across the land, with the interim government seemingly powerless to stop the mayhem.

Back home, the press takes an increasingly pessimistic tone, with some of the most prominent news organs pronouncing the U.S.'s postwar strategy an abject failure.

Iraq 2004? Not exactly.

Try Germany 1946, in the first year after World War II.

To hear the liberals tell the story, once the Allies conquered the Nazis, they stayed conquered - with American forces treated like the liberators they were.

But according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North, not every conquered German welcomed the American occupation with open arms.

On Monday North detailed the little-known truth about the post-World War II U.S. experience to ABC radio host Sean Hannity:

"From May 8, 1945 until June 1946, over a thousand Americans and their dependents were killed by German terrorists," he explained, while discussing his new book, "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific."

So, how did the U.S. eventually quell the violence?

"General Eisenhower went to [interim German leader] Konrad Adenauer, the guy we hand-picked to run the new government," said North. "And he told him, 'You either stop this or we'll get a new guy to run this country.'"

Adenauer prompty contacted the Wermacht and told them to take care of the problem at all costs, using former SS troops if necessary.

"It wasn't pretty," said North. "There were no trials - nobody was brought before tribunals or anything like that. The German army just went out and took care of it. And the killing stopped."

Added North, "I think that's probably what's going to happen in Iraq."

- Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC (ret.)

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by budster101:
...and quite frankly so does history.

no. i know quite a few people who lived in germany right post ww2, and believe me from what they have told me, it was NOTHING like iraq is now.

Originally posted by budster101:
There was a US occupation in Germany for, well we are still there. Why do you think we are still in Germany still?

the beer?

no, honestly, they greatly reduced the troops over the last 10 years already. i believe they'll be mostly gone by 2010. unless of course, the govt. here grows a spine and gives the pnac a big 'middle fingers up'. should it become an occupation again, yours truly is going to be one of the insurgents...

Originally posted by budster101:
The Iraqi people are already far better off now than they have been for the past 20 years.

all in all i'd say no. and it will get worse as time goes on (unfortunately).

Originally posted by budster101:
... have an opportunity to have a Democrat in the Whitehouse again.

WHAT.

Originally posted by budster101:
- Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC

you're oli north?

hay, how're our guys in iran doing?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
can't say this often enough, iraq is nothing like germany was after ww2.

According to anecdotal evidence from people who have only seen one side of this comparison.

first of all there was virtually NO resistance after ww2...

Patently false.

and secondly, there wasn't this massive international 'problem' with terrorism, oil and pnac imperialism. no, this is something completely different.

Irrelevant, irrelevant, and... what's this? Irrelevant. It's amazing how rare terrorism is striking the major players inside Iraq, except for that which originates from Iraq itself, and this is difficult to distinguish from the insurgency. Many similar acts were performed in Germany, post-WWII. This has been known for decades, well before the current Iraq situation, so there is no revisionism going on here.

iraq has a puppet govt...

Evidence, please. There is nothing to indicate that this is a puppet regime. Even if it is a so-called "puppet", the fact remains that it will be replaced just slightly over a month from now, by legitimate elections.

...and there is just enough stability for international corps to profit for now (monsanto, halliburten etc.)

There is little stability, but I can name regions which were far less stable post-occupation for far longer than this. Hell, the US wasn't this stable a year and a half after gaining its independence. Nor was Germany post-WWII, nor was Japan in the same time period.

For crying out loud, do you honestly think that a nation can be completely rebuilt in a year and half? Iraq is setting speed records, and yet you call it a "quagmire". Learn your history before making these kinds of judgments.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ambush:
One of the value of democracy is: "la tenue d'�lections libres" which (roughly) translates to.... having free elections to decide who will run the country.

Indeed.

Now what is freedom? It's the ability to make a choice w/o any fear of repression.

Define "repression". Repression is when a government punishes you for the choices you make. There is no evidence that the Iraqi interim government has been repressing people for their choices, nor any reason at this time to believe that an elected government would do this. Therefore, no fear of repression.

The questions is: are the Iraqis free? No they are NOT. They *cannot* make free choices because their nation is plagued with problems of imperialism and terrorism.

Terrorism, perhaps. Imperialism? Show me even one shred of hard evidence of this. But theterrorism is irrelevant, because by definition it cannot be controlled, and therefore cannot be fairly considered to enter into considerations of freedom.

If elections happen, the result will not be truly valid.

That may be oneof the most disgucsting assertions I've ever hears. A few psychos with bombs who hold no power can invalidate election results?

This is probably what will happen: People won't go out and vote because of the terrorists.

That's the same sort of thing people said in Afghanistan. What actually happened was a better turnout than even the most optimistic estimates. Terrorists went so far as to attack the polling lines, and still people did not run away. Quite a few people died that day, and that didn't stop the voters. So if not in Afghanistan, then why in Iraq?

Security will probably be available in the rich-ass counties and rich-ass Iraqis will vote for the pro-american.

And if Afghanistan is any indication, a lack of security will be no obstacle.

Iraq under Hussein was, by any standard, much more "progressive" than Afghanistan under the Taliban. Although Iraq was no democracy, its people have had more exposure to the trappings thereof, and likely have an even better sense of the importance of voting. In addition, the troubles of the US occupation -troubles which, from all indications, have not been occurring in Afghanistan- frankly only serves to get out the vote even more; why wouldn't it, when people have a chance of getting away from all that?

So if Afghanistan had the results they did -results which can only be described as stellar- then why will Iraq not have similar results?

Anyway. Elections in Iraq? The worst idea ever, if the situation keeps getting worse (like it does right now), the elections will truly be a joke.

Then what would you suggest? Hand over power to the insurgency? That wouldn't be any more legitimate than the current government, which -if nothing else- recognizes its temporary nature.

would YOU go out and vote? I know I wouldn't.

Then the people of the Middle East are far braver than you.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Indeed.

Define "repression". Repression is when a government punishes you for the choices you make. There is no evidence that the Iraqi interim government has been repressing people for their choices, nor any reason at this time to believe that an elected government would do this. Therefore, no fear of repression.

Terrorism, perhaps. Imperialism? Show me even one shred of hard evidence of this. But theterrorism is irrelevant, because by definition it cannot be controlled, and therefore cannot be fairly considered to enter into considerations of freedom.

That may be oneof the most disgucsting assertions I've ever hears. A few psychos with bombs who hold no power can invalidate election results?

That's the same sort of thing people said in Afghanistan. What actually happened was a better turnout than even the most optimistic estimates. Terrorists went so far as to attack the polling lines, and still people did not run away. Quite a few people died that day, and that didn't stop the voters. So if not in Afghanistan, then why in Iraq?

And if Afghanistan is any indication, a lack of security will be no obstacle.

Iraq under Hussein was, by any standard, much more "progressive" than Afghanistan under the Taliban. Although Iraq was no democracy, its people have had more exposure to the trappings thereof, and likely have an even better sense of the importance of voting. In addition, the troubles of the US occupation -troubles which, from all indications, have not been occurring in Afghanistan- frankly only serves to get out the vote even more; why wouldn't it, when people have a chance of getting away from all that?

So if Afghanistan had the results they did -results which can only be described as stellar- then why will Iraq not have similar results?

Then what would you suggest? Hand over power to the insurgency? That wouldn't be any more legitimate than the current government, which -if nothing else- recognizes its temporary nature.

Then the people of the Middle East are far braver than you.

You are the lamest imperialist ever.

Terrorism isn't just "for fun" stuff. People don't go suicide bombing for nothing. There is a cause. While this cause is in PART religious nonsense, there is a rational base to it. It can be ceased, if the USA stops being a neo-imperialist nation. If they mind their own business.

The people in the middle are far braver than me? I sure hope so. Then they can vote against the pro-american candidates and outlaw american imperialist occupation and oil leeching in a non-violent way.

What do I suggest? I suggest the US pulls out of all the oil business in Iraq. That would of course be an economical disaster for them. They would also inject funds to rebuild what they've destroyed and hope the Iraqi people will be kind enough to deal them oil at lower prices. Imperialism does not solve anything.

By the way, repression does not only come from the government. Thanks.

[budster101]

Originally posted by ambush:
You are the lamest imperialist ever.

Terrorism isn't just "for fun" stuff. People don't go suicide bombing for nothing. There is a cause. While this cause is in PART religious nonsense, there is a rational base to it. It can be ceased, if the USA stops being a neo-imperialist nation. If they mind their own business.

Their families are usualy paid in upwards of 25,000 cash for them to go and bomb people. Saddam Hussein often openly paid family members of these human bombs. There is your rational base. Capitalism taken to it's extreme. What a noble cause they have for becoming human bombs. When you say 'part' religious nonsense, isn't that supposed to be the important part? You mean the 'Imperialist Nation' that helped to end WWI, WWII, The Cold War with Russia? That imperialist nation?

The people in the middle are far braver than me? I sure hope so. Then they can vote against the pro-american candidates and outlaw american imperialist occupation and oil leeching in a non-violent way.

You just stated that you are not brave enough to vote against a Pro-American Candidate. How telling a statement this is. What is the zip-code of your spider hole?
I suppose the French, German, and Russian people were not 'leeching' the oil for food money. You remember, the illegal sale of the oil vouchers, and kicking back billions of dollars to Saddam Hussein. He was to use this money for food, not weapons, or to line his own pockets.

What do I suggest? I suggest the US pulls out of all the oil business in Iraq. That would of course be an economical disaster for them. They would also inject funds to rebuild what they've destroyed and hope the Iraqi people will be kind enough to deal them oil at lower prices. Imperialism does not solve anything.

It's capitalism. Here are a few reminders for you. Japan and Germany post WWII are incredibly free and prosperous nations. Thanks to the USA.

By the way, repression does not only come from the government. Thanks.

It doesn't?

[ambush]

Originally posted by budster101:
Their families are usualy paid in upwards of 25,000 cash for them to go and bomb people. Saddam Hussein often openly paid family members of these human bombs. There is your rational base. Capitalism taken to it's extreme. What a noble cause they have for becoming human bombs. When you say 'part' religious nonsense, isn't that supposed to be the important part? You mean the 'Imperialist Nation' that helped to end WWI, WWII, The Cold War with Russia? That imperialist nation?



You just stated that you are not brave enough to vote against a Pro-American Candidate. How telling a statement this is. What is the zip-code of your spider hole?
I suppose the French, German, and Russian people were not 'leeching' the oil for food money. You remember, the illegal sale of the oil vouchers, and kicking back billions of dollars to Saddam Hussein. He was to use this money for food, not weapons, or to line his own pockets.



It's capitalism. Here are a few reminders for you. Japan and Germany post WWII are incredibly free and prosperous nations. Thanks to the USA.



It doesn't?

It's neo-imperialism, not imperialism.

Get a grip: the USA are widely criticized outside of the USA. You have very few supporters around the globe. No one likes to be invaded.

Remember how this is an illegal war? The UN did not approve it. Most of the world doesn't. So many DEAD people because of an unilateral, stupid, greedy move.

You know it. You know it's for the oil and the new market opportunities. You know it unconsciously. You think your country went there for inexistant WMDs? Wake up. Wipe your eyes man. There are no wmds. There is oil tho., and your country needs it. You wish that the people who run your country weren't fat capitalist cats that value money before human lives. You wish your army wasn't caught in a new vietnam with a terrorist event happening every other day. You wish rats like Cheney and Bush weren't so greedy. But it's unconscious for now.

The USA and its parallel government you like to call the "CIA" have been busy trying to overthrow regimes (COUGH Chile, Chavez,etc). Why do they keep trying? It's not worth it. Venezuela is the 4th largest oil exporter. You think it's a coincidence that the CIA tried to overthrow Chavez and impose its free market rules? Capitalism isn't accepted by everyone.

Repression can be done by other agents than the government. E.g.: Corporations, families, etc.

[budster101]

Originally posted by ambush:
Get a grip: the USA are widely criticized outside of the USA. You have very few supporters around the globe. No one likes to be invaded.

What? This makes not sense. When has the US not been criticized? We have enough, and we don't need any to protect ourselves. I know nobody likes to be invaded. Your point?

Remember how this is an illegal war? The UN did not approve it. Most of the world doesn't. So many DEAD people because of an unilateral, stupid, greedy move.

The war is not illegal, get it straight please. The UN sanctions were not being adhered to. I understand how hard that is for a corrupt group such as those representing French, German, and Russian interests in Iraq. Twasn't unilateral as you would like to pretend it is. Please stop viewing Michael Moore Propoganda.

You know it. You know it's for the oil and the new market opportunities. You know it unconsciously. You think your country went there for inexistant WMDs? Wake up. Wipe your eyes man. <too much of a rant has been clipped> You wish rats like Cheney and Bush weren't so greedy. But it's unconscious for now.

I know it's not for oil. Unconsciously? Are you for real? I know the WMDs were there for sure before we went in. Even subconsciously. Uncoinsiously, I'm sure I think hardly anything beyond what is under my eye-lids.

The USA and its parallel government you like to call the "CIA" have been busy trying to overthrow regimes (COUGH Chile, Chavez,etc). Why do they keep trying? It's not worth it. Venezuela is the 4th largest oil exporter. You think it's a coincidence that the CIA tried to overthrow Chavez and impose its free market rules? Capitalism isn't accepted by everyone.

Repression can be done by other agents than the government. E.g.: Corporations, families, etc.

Capitalism isn't accepted by everyone? The only ones are the dictators and socialistic communist regimes that put human rights below that of animals. You have to get over this conspiratorial thinking. Really, it's over the top. I suppose when Castro took all that belonged to so many and kept it for himself, that was better than anything the USA could do? Try to think differ-net. You have been pumped full of propoganda and I would recommend a very large coffee enema.

[ambush]

Originally posted by budster101:
What? This makes not sense. When has the US not been criticized? We have enough, and we don't need any to protect ourselves. I know nobody likes to be invaded. Your point?



The war is not illegal, get it straight please. The UN sanctions were not being adhered to. I understand how hard that is for a corrupt group such as those representing French, German, and Russian interests in Iraq. Twasn't unilateral as you would like to pretend it is. Please stop viewing Michael Moore Propoganda.



I know it's not for oil. Unconsciously? Are you for real? I know the WMDs were there for sure before we went in. Even subconsciously. Uncoinsiously, I'm sure I think hardly anything beyond what is under my eye-lids.



Capitalism isn't accepted by everyone? The only ones are the dictators and socialistic communist regimes that put human rights below that of animals. You have to get over this conspiratorial thinking. Really, it's over the top. I suppose when Castro took all that belonged to so many and kept it for himself, that was better than anything the USA could do? Try to think differ-net. You have been pumped full of propoganda and I would recommend a very large coffee enema.

There nothing to do about you. Not even Plato or Socrates in person could convince you.

Get out of your cave. Enter the real world.

[budster101]

Originally posted by ambush:
There nothing to do about you. Not even Plato or Socrates in person could convince you.

Get out of your cave. Enter the real world.

Oh. Ok.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
According to anecdotal evidence from people who have only seen one side of this comparison.

no, after comparing what people have told me who actually helped rebuild germany after ww2 and from what i've seen on the news and have heard from iraqis since the war has started. and it is NOTHING like post ww2 germany. how can you even compare islamic insurgency with a few, almost non existent, pockets of nazi resistance? berlin, aachen, munich and hamburg were not even close to what places like falludja and baghdad are now.

the nazis were done after ww2. do you actually want to argue the same for jihad?

Originally posted by Millennium:
Patently false.

no, there was VIRTUALLY NONE. and that's a fact. please millenium, don't try and talk about things you don't know anything about.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Irrelevant, irrelevant, and... what's this? Irrelevant.

oh, yeah, whatever you say.

Originally posted by Millennium:
It's amazing how rare terrorism is striking the major players inside Iraq, except for that which originates from Iraq itself, and this is difficult to distinguish from the insurgency.

have you even been watching the news lately? omg, there's a new suicide bombing, terrorist act and major explosion in iraq EVERY OTHER DAY! do you honestly want me to believe that this is what germany was like after ww2? pffff, laughable.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Even if it is a so-called "puppet", the fact remains that it will be replaced just slightly over a month from now, by legitimate elections.

yeah, we'll see.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Nor was Germany post-WWII...

again, no. not even close.

Originally posted by Millennium:
For crying out loud, do you honestly think that a nation can be completely rebuilt in a year and half? Iraq is setting speed records, and yet you call it a "quagmire".

speed records? LOL. okay. we'll see. as far as most of the media here can tell, this is the worst post-war desaster for the us since vietnam...and a complete and total catastrophe for most of the iraqi population.

[Randman]

Don't forgot that Iraq had elections a few years ago. Saddam won in a vast majority. Unanimous, I think.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Randman:
Don't forgot that Iraq had elections a few years ago. Saddam won in a vast majority. Unanimous, I think.

Like I said, "the trappings of democracy". It was actually more akin to a no-confidence vote, as Hussein himself wasthe only candidate and the only possible votes were "Yes" and "No". Furthermore, the election lacked the single most important feature of any democratic election: the secret ballot. Instead, Yes and No votes went into separate boxes, with both in plain view, such that anyone who voted No could expect to die within the next few days.

Given this, is it any wonder the "vote" was unanimous?

[budster101]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Like I said, "the trappings of democracy". It was actually more akin to a no-confidence vote, as Hussein himself wasthe only candidate and the only possible votes were "Yes" and "No". Furthermore, the election lacked the single most important feature of any democratic election: the secret ballot. Instead, Yes and No votes went into separate boxes, with both in plain view, such that anyone who voted No could expect to die within the next few days.

Given this, is it any wonder the "vote" was unanimous?

That is incredibly true to the point, and furthermore if I might expand on that sentiment, he won by 99 percent and I'm wondering where that 1 percent is buried? It sickens me that someone would compare Democracy to Dictatorships, and we are the Neo-Imperialists? Such a backwards view of the world.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ambush:
There nothing to do about you. Not even Plato or Socrates in person could convince you.

Get out of your cave. Enter the real world.

"The real world"? Or, the world you want to portray as real? You're a 16 year-old kid. You have no grasp on what the "real world" is like, when you move out of mom's house, get a real job, and start being responsible for yourself, THEN you can get in on the topic. Sheesh.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by budster101:
Oh. Ok.

Don't let the barely pubescent Marxist get ya down, he's still marveling over the fact that his chin and stones are starting to grow hair.

[ambush]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Don't let the barely pubescent Marxist get ya down, he's still marveling over the fact that his chin and stones are starting to grow hair.

You so owned me there. Whoo.

[budster101]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Don't let the barely pubescent Marxist get ya down, he's still marveling over the fact that his chin and stones are starting to grow hair.

Well, I wrote this long response to his post naming some modern not-so-long-dead philosophers that would disagree with his points. He named a few that would fail to convince me to change my mind. I've given this issue a great deal of thought, and I think I could hold my own with any philosopher because my ideas are based on sound arguments, some of which I have penned in these forums. I'm not down, I just realize that he has to go out and read some more people's thoughts that might disagree with his notion of the world. Presently he's not even capable of joining the armed forces or take a drink of an adult beverage [legaly].

I like to view the world around me and seek out the normal clues to the questions which I have a need to answer. I'm not so confident in human beings to filter their own misgivings and tinted views to satisfy these questions for me. Especially someone of so few years living. If you are going to quote a dead person, make sure you put the quote in place instead of tossing names about. Make a solid argument, back it up with some resources. I have an open mind and as a once great salesman said to me, "I'm the best customer anyone has ever had!, because I want you to make the sale."

If someday, I come to the conclusion I have been wrong about anything, it is my duty to admit it to myself, and change the way in which I aproach the world around me. We are all evolving in ourselves, and as I press over and over again, it is up to us as individuals to seek out the truth of our existence. I believe there are clues strewn all about us, we just have too look with new eyes.

The philosophers he named were only two of many who were plagued with the desire to answer the questions that have no apparent answers. They cannot be simply explained. I don't think for a moment that they would attempt to convince me of anything, only to help to enable me to find the answers for myself. Politicians are the ones who need to convince you of one way to believe over another, not philosophers. All philosophers borrow from the ideas of those who came before them, and even discard the rediculous notions they have come to believe as pure folly. We learn from our past, and build on that.

I'm far from down. I've been to hell and back, and it will take a great deal more than someone telling me I should "get out of my cave" to get me down. It actually gave me a bit of a laugh and made me want to go out and pick up some books from the library to read up on Plato. That can't be a bad thing.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:

as far as most of the media here can tell, this is the worst post-war desaster for the us since vietnam...and a complete and total catastrophe for most of the iraqi population.

Don't trust your media blindly. Read what Iraqis are saying.

From http://healingiraq.blogspot.com

"The Arab media persists in labelling these criminal elements as freedom fighters in a legitimate conflict with an occupying force, and that this resistance is nationwide, spontaneous and widely supported by the Iraqi people as an immediate result of US actions in postwar Iraq. The media chooses to ignore the fact that the main victim of this resistance is the Iraqi people itself, and that only a tiny fraction of attacks are now directed at occupation forces. This resistance realises that if free elections supervised by the UN and the international community take place in January 2005 and if a legitimate representative government assumes power in the country then the resistance would have to cease to exist. "


Western media either parrots the line of Arab media, or even employs Arabs who have connections to the insurgents in the case of Reuters and BBC. The most that those two have done to defend such connections is say that they need to employ such people to help tell the story of the insurgents.

fromhttp://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html

Good news from Iraq, part 13.
Some people criticize us and other bloggers and journalists who adopt optimistic perspectives similar to ours.

They seem to think that we’re ignoring the bad things that are happening in Iraq and focusing only on the good side just to serve the agenda of the American administration or the so called “neo conservatives”.
This is not true, as we have never said that Iraqi is a perfect place and that progress is being made in lighting speed. We acknowledge the difficulties and the terrible losses and each loss, whether among Iraqis or coalition forces makes us really sad and discourages us for a while.

The difference is that we can also see the good things that are being done; we want to encourage such progress and promote a better vision for Iraq’s future.
Most of the optimists and pessimists do have an agenda, but not all, as there are some pessimists as well as optimists who are honest in the way they deal with the Iraqi issue and we respect both but we ‘chose’ to be optimistic and not allow ourselves to be discouraged because Iraq, the region and the whole world needs such attitude. It is a commitment just as it is a personal perspective. On the other side; pessimism, although understandable but very dangerous in this particular struggle and it approaches the verge of defeatism, which while not that disastrous when dealing with new projects or adventures, is catastrophic in such a crucial conflict.

Chrenkoff sees this and recognized “two Iraqs” in a way that is very difficult to be seen by people other than Iraqis living inside Iraq. As he put it:

There are two Iraqs.

The one we more often get to see and read about is a dangerous place, full of exploding cars, kidnaped foreigners and deadly ambushes. The reconstruction is proceeding at a snail's pace, frustration boils over and tensions - political, ethnic, religious - crackle in the air like static electricity before a storm.

The other Iraq is a once prosperous and promising country of twenty-four million people, slowly recovering from physical and moral devastation of totalitarian rule. It's a country whose people are slowly beginning to stand on their own feet, grasp the opportunities undreamed of only two years ago, and dream of catching up on three decades of lost time.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Western media either parrots the line of Arab media, or even employs Arabs who have connections to the insurgents in the case of Reuters and BBC.

sorry, i'll take the bbc, reuters, spiegel, ard, zdf etc. over some bloggers any time.

feel free to believe whatever you want though.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Don't trust your media blindly. Read what Iraqis are saying.

From http://healingiraq.blogspot.com

...

"Don't trust the media - trust a blog that suits my bias."

[ambush]

Originally posted by budster101:
Well, I wrote this long response to his post naming some modern not-so-long-dead philosophers that would disagree with his points. He named a few that would fail to convince me to change my mind. I've given this issue a great deal of thought, and I think I could hold my own with any philosopher because my ideas are based on sound arguments, some of which I have penned in these forums. I'm not down, I just realize that he has to go out and read some more people's thoughts that might disagree with his notion of the world. Presently he's not even capable of joining the armed forces or take a drink of an adult beverage [legaly].

I like to view the world around me and seek out the normal clues to the questions which I have a need to answer. I'm not so confident in human beings to filter their own misgivings and tinted views to satisfy these questions for me. Especially someone of so few years living. If you are going to quote a dead person, make sure you put the quote in place instead of tossing names about. Make a solid argument, back it up with some resources. I have an open mind and as a once great salesman said to me, "I'm the best customer anyone has ever had!, because I want you to make the sale."

If someday, I come to the conclusion I have been wrong about anything, it is my duty to admit it to myself, and change the way in which I aproach the world around me. We are all evolving in ourselves, and as I press over and over again, it is up to us as individuals to seek out the truth of our existence. I believe there are clues strewn all about us, we just have too look with new eyes.

The philosophers he named were only two of many who were plagued with the desire to answer the questions that have no apparent answers. They cannot be simply explained. I don't think for a moment that they would attempt to convince me of anything, only to help to enable me to find the answers for myself. Politicians are the ones who need to convince you of one way to believe over another, not philosophers. All philosophers borrow from the ideas of those who came before them, and even discard the rediculous notions they have come to believe as pure folly. We learn from our past, and build on that.

I'm far from down. I've been to hell and back, and it will take a great deal more than someone telling me I should "get out of my cave" to get me down. It actually gave me a bit of a laugh and made me want to go out and pick up some books from the library to read up on Plato. That can't be a bad thing.

Question: What is your education level? I'm investigating. You're the second person to whom I ask this question on these boards. I guess I'm just curious.

vmarks, are you from the MOSSAD (המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים מיוחדים ) ?

You must be one of their new hires in the LAP (Lohamah Psichlogit) propaganda dept.

Hope I didn't blow your cover.

[budster101]

Originally posted by ambush:
Question: What is your education level? I'm investigating. You're the second person to whom I ask this question on these boards. I guess I'm just curious.

vmarks, are you from the MUSSAD?

I've got about 22 years of schooling behind me, and a lifetime yet to go until I retire from learning. I'd really like to seek my P.hD. sometime in the coming years.

How about youreslf?

[ambush]

Originally posted by budster101:
I've got about 22 years of schooling behind me, and a lifetime yet to go until I retire from learning. I'd really like to seek my P.hD. sometime in the coming years.

How about youreslf?

I'm still in college -- in what field do you study? Did you get 2 obligatory philo. classes? I don't know how it works in the US.

[budster101]

Originally posted by ambush:
I'm still in college -- in what field do you study? Did you get 2 obligatory philo. classes? I don't know how it works in the US.

I've studied Computer Science, Physiology, Business, Art, Philosophy, and finally decided to complete one field of study. In the US with the 'Liberal Arts" degree you have to take two philosophy courses and they can vary from basic logic [all athletes take this easy 'A'] course depending on who teaches it, and General Philosophy. I remember when I was a freshman and I took my first philosophy course. It was a nightmare for me, because I thought I had all the answers and was going to provide my professor with some unique answers to his questions. I was rudely awakened when I flunked out of that course. My professor didn't fail me, but I failed myself. He did succeed in teaching me to think critically, so when I am presented with information, it is my responsibility to discern if there is an underlying bias that might corrupt it.

Some of my favorite courses were electives, such as Cultural Anthropology, Ethics, Philosophy, and Logic.

What course of study are you pursuing? How far are you planning on taking it?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
"Don't trust the media - trust a blog that suits my bias."

Trust iraqi voices over propagandists hired used as both eyewitness residents and reporters by media who can't make up their mind whether their source is a source or a reporter.

The blogger inquestion even answered people who accuse him of being biased, saying "we have never said that Iraqi is a perfect place and that progress is being made in lighting speed. We acknowledge the difficulties and the terrible losses and each loss, whether among Iraqis or coalition forces makes us really sad and discourages us for a while.

The difference is that we can also see the good things that are being done; we want to encourage such progress and promote a better vision for Iraq’s future.
Most of the optimists and pessimists do have an agenda, but not all, as there are some pessimists as well as optimists who are honest in the way they deal with the Iraqi issue and we respect both but we ‘chose’ to be optimistic and not allow ourselves to be discouraged because Iraq, the region and the whole world needs such attitude. It is a commitment just as it is a personal perspective. On the other side; pessimism, although understandable but very dangerous in this particular struggle and it approaches the verge of defeatism, which while not that disastrous when dealing with new projects or adventures, is catastrophic in such a crucial conflict."

It is a shame you failed to read that. Recognizing the good in Iraq is as important, and perhaps more important than only paying attention to the bad, but as you and roberto blanco say, only the bad is reported and that's what you trust, and even appear to revel in.

Trusting only the media is providing you with a faulty perspective, since the media has abdicated their duty to report the good among the bad. They have even gone on to employ those close to the terrorists harming and attacking iraqis. (Because in case you didn't know, most of the attacks aren't on US soldiers any longer, those are the exception to the ones that are carried out against Iraqi police and other institutions.)

One of al-Reuters’ Arab stringers, Fadil al-Badrani, has a report from Fallujah about the damage to the city, denouncing coalition forces for the destruction and giving a complete pass to the murderous mujahideen who turned the city into a nightmarish hell: Falluja Returnees Angry, ‘City Unfit for Animals’. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...raq_falluja_dc

But then Fadil al-Badrani has been at this for quite a while; here’s a report from November in which he was interviewed by the BBC, identified only as “a resident of Fallujah:” BBC Knowingly Spreads Arab Propaganda. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...rab_Propaganda

So is he the source to be quoted, or is he the reporter?

Then we have this, where the Associated Press tries to explain away an embrassing situation for them: http://www.poynter.org/forum/?id=letters

From JACK STOKES, director of media relations, Associated Press: [This is a solicited letter regarding Salon’s “The Associated Press ‘insurgency.’” http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...22/executions/ ] Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.

Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It’s important to note, though, that the photographers are not “embedded” with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

[ambush]

I vote for a ban of the MOSSAD's IP range...

budster101, I'm in Politics, and I want to become a university teacher or a elementary school teacher. One way or the other, I will be pursuing studies until I get a PHd.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...It is a shame you failed to read that....

You're right - I stopped reading when I saw the links to MEMRI and 'SecularIslam'.org......

[budster101]

Originally posted by ambush:
I vote for a ban of the MOSSAD's IP range...

budster101, I'm in Politics, and I want to become a university teacher or a elementary school teacher. One way or the other, I will be pursuing studies until I get a PHd.

You are studying Political Science. That's an interesting topic which I have successfully avoided my entire education. Not to get off topic here, but I thought of becoming a teacher, and my wife and I had a discussion or two on the topic. I couldn't be a grade-school teacher because the little rascals would walk all over me, I'm a pushover. High-School students, I just can't stand. Kids at that age are, well, like I used to be. I'd like to maybe be a College Professor someday as I think that is more my speed. All the students are there of their own free will and are actually interested in learning, for the most part.

In the words of John Adams: "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy."

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Trust iraqi voices over propagandists hired used as both eyewitness residents and reporters by media who can't make up their mind whether their source is a source or a reporter.

Glad you think so.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/