Iraqis not good enough for ACTUAL democracy?

You think they want the kind of democracy we have?


Do you actually think we have TRUE democracy??

Come on, you gotta be smarter then that...


Please do more research.... Those iraqi people are very religious , they live simple, they live what we call poor.

They had a dictator, i'm glad he's gone, but I really think the Iraqi people can set up a system that suits their wishes, not have one forced upon them...

They could probably create a better democracy then the one we have, God knows the us government isn't doing it's job in creating a "true" democracy. They are more likely to take democracy away from us, which they are doing...
Give me a break..

Thats all good and well TrueLies, but please, entertain us a bit here: Is there any nation today that meets your standards of "democracy"?
Personally, having lived in the US most of my natural life, I can well do what I want, when I want, how I want, etc......though I have to do these things within local, state, and federal government guidelines and regulations, but, 'democracy' may be a fore gone conclusion, but when it comes to "freedoms", I haven't had one lick of problems...you?
If you haven't, then whats the problem?



seekerof

[Edited on 30-3-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Did you miss the point that Leveller was making in regards to "democracy," your so-called "freedoms of speech" and "freedoms of press" ECK?





seekerof

No, I heard that, Seekerof. That point was taken. But, it was unnecessary, just the same.

Originally posted by TrueLies
Please do more research.... Those iraqi people are very religious , they live simple, they live what we call poor.

I think you need to research. Not all Iraqis are poor. There is an advanced society within the country that is educated and relatively well off. It is this section that the US is concentrating on to become the forerunners of a new democracy.

Being religious is not a good way to run a country. Every single Arab country that mixes religion with politics has a society where it's people are oppressed and democracy is just a word that nobody understands.

Poor people don't always make the best leaders either. Unfortunately, poverty and education aren't easy bedfellows. Any new leader of Iraq is going to have to be educated enough to understand the needs of his country and how to adapt to deliver them.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

No, I heard that, Seekerof. That point was taken. But, it was unnecessary, just the same.

It would be unnecessary if just used as an insult. As it was, it proved a point and trapped you in logic.
Therefore it was entirely necessary, so quit whining.

Leveller: "As I said, I genuinely didn't mean it as a personal attack (believe me, I have a lot better than that in my arsenal if I were interested in defamation) but Jak and yourself have given a reaction that is contradictory to your argument.

It proves how carefully freedom of speech has to be used and shows how it cannot be left to run unchecked."

?! You calling me an asswipe and me asking if mods read it has NOTHING to do with closing down newspapers in Iraq.

Why? Well, you're FREE to insult me or say anything you want to. If a Moderator here decides you're being a dick, they can ban you. It's THEIR site, they pony up the dough but it's a FREE EXCHANGE OF INFO and opinions.

What's happening in Iraq would be similar if instead of YOU being banned, the entire site was shut down for all of us because of what you say.

See?

"It would be unnecessary if just used as an insult. As it was, it proved a point and trapped you in logic.
Therefore it was entirely necessary, so quit whining."

See above. You trapped nobody in anything remotely resembling logic, sorry.

jako

I've explained to you the reasoning. So you're either calling me a liar or you're ignorant.

It had exactly EVERYTHING to do with the subject.

The thread is about Freedom of Speech. You started it and your inference is that freedom of speech is a right of every human and that it should be left alone by authorities.

My argument is that the newspaper was using inflammatory language and needed to be reined in. I then gave you an example of how freedom of speech using inflammatory language can be taken out of context and used as a divide.

By your argument that my post should be moderated, you disproved your own theory. You have insisted that my freedom of speech and it's inflammatory language should be curbed.

You have argued against the very point that you tried to promote.

Most countries in Europe have more freedom than the US? Jakomo, dont make yourself look so ridiculous. Youre smarter than that. Europe has to be one of the most pleasantly oppresive places Ive ever seen.

In France, u can no longer wear religious symbols in public schools. This isnt a matter of seperation of Church and state, its a matter of people practicing thier beliefs. Its a matter of what people can wear on thier person.
In Germany, u can get arrested for seig heiling or doing anything Nazi in public. Which supresses thier right for freedom og association. zNo matter how vile it is, free speech is supposed to be protected.
In the UK, you cant go anywhere without #ing security cams watching your every move.

These are just a small compilation of things that go oj in Europe. Freer than the US? dont make me laugh. I could go on and on about stories told to me by friends over there, and things I have seen, that never make it into the so called "unbiased" Eureopean media mainstream. Europe is just as oppresive as the US, even more so in certain areas. They are leftist oppresive, cloaked in honey, while the US tends more towards right.

Anyway, Leveller has a good point. Even on this board, freedom of speech is limiyed. Hence, no personal attacks. YThis a;lso hold true for newspapers. If said paper is advocating, suggting violence or trying to instigate more attacks on troops, then they hadd every right to shut them down.

I find tst the wold has far more grey in it that absolute vlac and wguye

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

No, I heard that, Seekerof. That point was taken. But, it was unnecessary, just the same.

It would be unnecessary if just used as an insult. As it was, it proved a point and trapped you in logic.
Therefore it was entirely necessary, so quit whining.

Don't go childish on me, Leveller. My point was that you didn't have to get down into the linguistic gutter to make a point. Perhaps it was my mistake to think you could do better. And you've trapped no one, btw.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Don't go childish on me, Leveller. My point was that you didn't have to get down into the linguistic gutter to make a point.

Absolutely incorrect. The intention was to create an impassioned response to illustrate the point. Unfortunately, inflammatory language is the most efficient way to achieve this result.
As the thread is all about a newspaper being closed down for using inflammatory language, it was an utterly appropriate angle to take.
I maybe could have taken another avenue but, to tell the truth, the directness of this approach was the best way to disprove the accusation being made.
The fact that you still seem to be annoyed by my language, further stresses the point that freedom of speech can be damaging if left unchecked and unmoderated.

I repeat. The fact that you wish to see my opening statement moderated or put in a different way, disproves your theory that people should be able to say whatever they like.

Leveller: "The thread is about Freedom of Speech. You started it and your inference is that freedom of speech is a right of every human and that it should be left alone by authorities. "

Ok, read what I wrote again. My inference is that freedom of speech is a right for a country's OWN GOVERNMENT to determine. Not an Occupying Power. Iraqis should determine for THEMSELVES what limits their press has, NOT the United States.

When the United States tells Iraqis what they can read and can't, it's a few steps away from fascism.

And when they do it and STILL claim they're promoting Democracy, it's a lame joke.

"You have argued against the very point that you tried to promote."

Since you totally missed my point...

Skadi: Most people in Europe have more freedoms than the US.

There are more people in JAIL in the U.S. than all of Europe put together. Is that freedom? Is it just that the US has far stricter laws (less freedom) or is it that Americans are just more criminal?

You have less rights than most Europeans, and that's a fact. Corporations determine more of your laws than actual voters.

You don't have a representative democracy. You still have huge race problems, and with new laws (PATRIOT) you can be arrested and held without trial INDEFINITELY.

Free indeed.





[Edited on 30-3-2004 by Jakomo]

Originally posted by Jakomo


Ok, read what I wrote again. My inference is that freedom of speech is a right for a country's OWN GOVERNMENT to determine. Not an Occupying Power. Iraqis should determine for THEMSELVES what limits their press has, NOT the United States.

You, ECK and myself have just proven how dangerous freedom of speech can be. To a country that has never had it and has no clue how to use it, it is lethal.

Freedom of Speech is not a liberty that can be put into place overnight. It has to be learnt how to be handled, just like anything else. It took centuries for the West to get anywhere near the level of freedom of speech that you see in the present day - and even now it gets put in check occasionally.
It is impossible to expect a society that has never experienced such a liberty to be able to adapt to it overnight and without education.

Freedom of speech is as much of a weapon as it is a liberty. Use it the wrong way and you are even more liable to blow your own head off. Use a weapon without training or even understanding it's capabilities and you are asking for trouble.

Your argument that it is up to the Iraqis to decide what to do with freedom of speech is only pertinent if you want to see them blow their own heads off with it.

Leveller: "Your argument that it is up to the Iraqis to decide what to do with freedom of speech is only pertinent if you want to see them blow their own heads off with it."

See, I'd say it's better to let THEM make that mistake for themselves. Let them realize what they need to do once their freedom of the press makes them blow each other's heads off. To think that they'd descend into anarchy is a bit simplistic. Maybe some blood will be spilled but they'll be better off in the end (those left alive anyway).

Instead, the U.S. is taking that choice away from them. And guess whose heads will be blown off for that? U.S. troops. Over and over and over again.

But if they are allowed to make the mistakes for themselves (let's call it trial and error), they will learn it.


What metric is the US judged on for their nation-building? Give me ONE instance where the United States has successfully instilled democracy in a non-democratic country in the LAST 50 YEARS and I'll have a little more faith in their obviously terrible policy so far.

They've overthrown more than they've installed, they have NO EXPERIENCE IN THIS.

Originally posted by Jakomo
See, I'd say it's better to let THEM make that mistake for themselves. Let them realize what they need to do once their freedom of the press makes them blow each other's heads off. Instead, the U.S. is taking that choice away from them. And guess whose heads will be blown off for that? U.S. troops. Over and over and over again.
But if they are allowed to make the mistakes for themselves (let's call it trial and error), they will learn it.

That statement would be OK if Iraq wasn't a country that wouldn't be divided if the US left. But the fact is that it has always been divided. Saddam kept the divisions under control with force. A civilised society has to be put in place to replace that force.

Probably more US soldiers will get killed. Probably British, Polish, Italian and all of the others. But why make a distinction between nationalities? Isn't every human life precious? There are times when people have to make sacrifices for the good of the whole.

I'm in the UK. Any death of one of our servicemen is abhorrent and tragic. But even though I'm patriotic, I would rather a handful of British soldiers sacrifice their lives than a whole people destroy itself.

Unlike you, I don't believe that Iraq is a lost cause.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Don't go childish on me, Leveller. My point was that you didn't have to get down into the linguistic gutter to make a point.

Absolutely incorrect. The intention was to create an impassioned response to illustrate the point. Unfortunately, inflammatory language is the most efficient way to achieve this result.
As the thread is all about a newspaper being closed down for using inflammatory language, it was an utterly appropriate angle to take.
I maybe could have taken another avenue but, to tell the truth, the directness of this approach was the best way to disprove the accusation being made.
The fact that you still seem to be annoyed by my language, further stresses the point that freedom of speech can be damaging if left unchecked and unmoderated.

I repeat. The fact that you wish to see my opening statement moderated or put in a different way, disproves your theory that people should be able to say whatever they like.

Get over yourself.

You can say whatever you want. If you want intelligent people to listen, take a more intelligent approach.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
You can say whatever you want. If you want intelligent people to listen, take a more intelligent approach.

Ummm. You got involved. So you either aren't intelligent or you did listen.

How about we let the Iraqis do their own thing. Let them have Democracy. Let's quit telling them what they can and can't write. That's Bu#.

America needs to quit being so ignorant and arrogant. The Iraqis are an educated people who are quite capable of putting together a government and media of their own choosing. They don't need the west coddling them or dictating to them how to run their own country.

As far as the Iraqi media goes.. the CPA is just doing their best to keep the lid on the anti-occupation rhetoric. It's all about pro-coalition propaganda.

So much for Democracy.

Leveller: "That statement would be OK if Iraq wasn't a country that wouldn't be divided if the US left. But the fact is that it has always been divided. Saddam kept the divisions under control with force. A civilised society has to be put in place to replace that force.

Probably more US soldiers will get killed. Probably British, Polish, Italian and all of the others. But why make a distinction between nationalities? Isn't every human life precious? There are times when people have to make sacrifices for the good of the whole.

I'm in the UK. Any death of one of our servicemen is abhorrent and tragic. But even though I'm patriotic, I would rather a handful of British soldiers sacrifice their lives than a whole people destroy itself.

Unlike you, I don't believe that Iraq is a lost cause."

In your blind arrogance you fail to realize IT'S THEIR FOOKIN COUNTRY. The coalition has no RIGHT to think they can fix things.

Get the eff out of there and let them do what they want.

But that won't happen, because the Bush administration is AFRAID of what they might do. What if they elect an anti-U.S. Islamic government? Nope, can't have that.

What if they elect a democratic government that refuses to kowtow to the US? Nope, can't have that.

Get OUT and let them take care of themselves, the United States of America hasNOT shown that it can even take care of its' OWN problems (multi-trillion dollar deficit for one of the richest countries in the world anyone?).

It's not your country, you fought an easy war to be there and you have no right to stay and decide what Iraqis can and can't do. No right at all.

Your arrogance that you can solve their problems is typical of someone who has no clue about what Iraq's problems really are. Their problem is foreign fighters. as in, The Coalition. You are INVADERS and that's how they see you.

The US didn't seem to care when Kurds and Shias were being slaughtered before, what's the diff now?

Maybe you can liberate Nepal on the way home.


jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
In your blind arrogance you fail to realize IT'S THEIR FOOKIN COUNTRY. The coalition has no RIGHT to think they can fix things.

It might be their FOOKIN ("Fookin?" Hope EKC doesn't see that) country, but if they can't run it, then they need a hand. You seem to think that the Iraqis are capable of taking their own destiny in their hands and creating some sort of Utopia. Have you ever once stopped to think what the consequences to them might be if the coalition pulled out?

Yeah, great. Let them die.
Sorry some of us have the arrogance to try to put things right.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by Jakomo

It might be their FOOKIN ("Fookin?" Hope EKC doesn't see that) country, but if they can't run it, then they need a hand. You seem to think that the Iraqis are capable of taking their own destiny in their hands and creating some sort of Utopia. Have you ever once stopped to think what the consequences to them might be if the coalition pulled out?

Yeah, great. Let them die.
Sorry some of us have the arrogance to try to put things right.

Leveller, go back and study the history of Mesopotamia. You will lose some of that ignorant arrogance if you have a clear understanding of what the people of that region have gone through.

The reason it is so terribly conflicted (Sunnis/Kurds/Shiites) is because of the West's ignorant planning (Sykes-Picot Agreement). Look into it. It was the western powers that made a region teeming with three very different ethnic groups (among others) into one country (present day Iraq). It's been Fooked ever since.

What the west has done to the people of that region in the name of oil is tragic. It was once, long ago and far away, the cradle of civilization.