View Full Version : The Iraqi Election Thread
The polls have been open for about an hour and a half. Relatively ho-hum so far, but I suppose no news is good news.
LordSlaytan
01-30-05, 01:33 AM
The acting Iraqi President just voted.
LordSlaytan
01-30-05, 01:34 AM
News Flash: 3 different explosions at Western Baghdad polling station.
Yep. Apparently there was a suicide bomber at a security checkpoint. Both Fox and MSNBC are indicating that this is mixed news; bad that the bomber managed to harm anyone, but good in that he couldn't get past the checkpoint, and probably didn't reach his target.
Let's hope the checkpoints hold.
SamsoniteDelilah
01-30-05, 02:15 AM
Were any US soldiers hurt?
I think I recall hearing that an Iraqi officer was killed, and that there were a few injuries. Two soldiers and two civilians, if memory serves. I'm not sure, though.
It's odd to think that, if we go to sleep now, we'll wake up and it'll be more or less over.
SamsoniteDelilah
01-30-05, 02:50 AM
I think I recall hearing that an Iraqi officer was killed, and that there were a few injuries. Two soldiers and two civilians, if memory serves. I'm not sure, though.
It's odd to think that, if we go to sleep now, we'll wake up and it'll be more or less over.
Sometimes, it's really good to know that the clocks can't stop.
Tacitus
01-30-05, 06:29 AM
There's been a mixed turnout so far apparently - Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4219569.stm)
72% is very substantial. We got less than 60% here on November 2nd, without any threat of violence.
If you ask me, the fret over the Sunnis is being blown out of proportion. The concern is that the Iraqi parliament will underrepresent them, thus undermining their legitimacy. This could be a problem, to be sure, but we don't really know yet.
All we know is that there was violence, but a lot of people came out to vote anyway. That's really encouraging.
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4219569.stm):
But few voters turned out in Sunni areas around the capital, reports said.Reuters (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050130/2005-01-30T141229Z_01_BAK023473_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-ELECTION-SCENE-DC.html+):
Even in Falluja, the Sunni city west of Baghdad that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a steady stream of people turned out, confounding expectations.Even in the so-called "triangle of death," a hotbed of Sunni insurgency south of Baghdad, turnout was solid, officials said.Hmmm. Guess we've got a bit longer to wait before we know exactly what happened.
72% of people came out to vote anyway. That's really encouraging.
:yup:
Piddzilla
01-31-05, 09:38 AM
I have to say that seeing and hearing the reports from the iraqi election is almost 100% positive. Yes, there was some violence but if as many as 70% came out to vote anyway, that is as Yoda allready said encouraging. I'll admit that for the first time in a very long while I feel like this war brought something good with it.
Sidenote: When I started reading this thread this public pc crashed! :eek:
It's always a neat feeling to know you are witnessing a historic event... What a great day for the Iraqis!
On a side note... here's an interesting post the guys over at Powerline found at Democratic Underground.
All the media keeps talking about is how happy the Iraqis are, how high turnout was, and how "freedom" has spread to Iraq. I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called "voters" and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all. Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?
I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bull****. (I added the bold)
Even if you don't like Bush I don't understand how someone can think such a thing... Guess I'm just a bit too idealistic.
chicagofrog
01-31-05, 12:59 PM
well, Mose, that guy is true: politics, like most Americans sadly assume (gives 'em a better conscience, tis so easy to go voting and you call that politics? involving yrself and struggling for an ideal means so much more), voters are not the only ones active in politics. when they are, it is justly the American-like democracy :down: (the one not everyone wants, fortunately!!)
where Bush is the winner in the Iraqi elections! :eek: :mad:
Well, we're getting revised estimates. Probably closer to 60% turnout -- still very impressive, though. I think the election has to be considered a success. We're not out of the woods yet. Let's hope this is just the beginning.
well, Mose, that guy is true: politics, like most Americans sadly assume (gives 'em a better conscience, tis so easy to go voting and you call that politics? involving yrself and struggling for an ideal means so much more), voters are not the only ones active in politics. when they are, it is justly the American-like democracy :down: (the one not everyone wants, fortunately!!)
where Bush is the winner in the Iraqi elections! :eek: :mad:What?
Agreed... I can't really follow that post. Are you saying you agree the media should have given more coverage to the 'freedom fighters', that the Iraqi election is not a good thing, the Iraqi goverment is simply a pawn of the Bush 'regime'? I'm confused
LordSlaytan
01-31-05, 02:11 PM
What?I second that with a "ZUH?" Must have lost something in the translation.
Anyway...when I read that statement from the Democratic Underground, all I could think of was, “Man, that guy is just full of hate. Nothing more, nothing less.”
What I'm really curious to know is what demographics made up that 60%.
well, Mose, that guy is true: politics, like most Americans sadly assume (gives 'em a better conscience, tis so easy to go voting and you call that politics? involving yrself and struggling for an ideal means so much more), voters are not the only ones active in politics. when they are, it is justly the American-like democracy :down: (the one not everyone wants, fortunately!!)
where Bush is the winner in the Iraqi elections! :eek: :mad:
Please explain which system of government you support. Now, if the voters (ie, the citizens, or serfs if you will), aren't active in the politics of the nation, that just leaves it to the politicians, and we certainly can't have that. So please, lay out your utopia, so we can blast it to shreds with logic. ;)
Also, I would like to see credentials on how:
1 - You have even the slightest idea about what it is like to live under American democracy.
2 - When the entire world can't seem to come up with a better system, and you somehow have.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would stop using massive amounts of assumption when passing judgement on a vast, varied body of people you clearly know very little about. I don't sit here blasting France, the reason being, I don't know anything about france that hasn't had someone elses slant put on it. In other words, I have never lived in France, or even been there, so I can't possibly know a damn thing about what life is REALLY like there. As for involving myself in ideals that mean so much more. I work hard every day to support myself, my girlfriend, and to uphold the system that I believe to be the best choice we have at the moment. Certainly not perfect, but the best of what is available. This is called working hard for an ideal. The ideal of a functioning society that allows me to live out my life in relative comfort, because I have worked hard for it.
Also, voters aren't the only ones active in politics in America. This statement is directly out to lunch. I notice thousands of politicians and hundreds of media outlets involved in politics, as well as pretty much anyone else that has a political idea. Of course these people are all voters, as that is how democracy works, with votes and stuff. Without voting, it would be a different system, get it?
Garrett
01-31-05, 03:58 PM
well, Mose, that guy is true: politics, like most Americans sadly assume (gives 'em a better conscience, tis so easy to go voting and you call that politics? involving yrself and struggling for an ideal means so much more), voters are not the only ones active in politics. when they are, it is justly the American-like democracy :down: (the one not everyone wants, fortunately!!)
where Bush is the winner in the Iraqi elections! :eek: :mad:
Please translate.
2 - When the entire world can't seem to come up with a better system, and you somehow have.
I think froggie's under that misconception that France is socialist ;) (i'm allowed to criticise you froggles, i'm a Brit. We're traditional enemies innit :) ;)).
As for the election...
Yeah, i hope the United Iraqi Alliance get it to be honest, so long as they hold good to their claim that they'll create a balanced "consensual" government (as fraught as that will be anyway, but hell, that's the only choice of keeping Iraq whole).
But...
Not to put a downer on things, but this election still means very little on its own. Whoever gets elected will only have negligible control over governance as i understand it. IMF control over economic policy means their social spending will be capped and their international economic policy dictated, while previously established contracts mean their major industrial and social programs are already under others' juristiction to a great degree.
So you see, whoever gets in is gonna look like a stooge government whatever, and won't be able to make many/any meaningful independent political actions.
They'll just be caretakers for foreign interests. And that much will be clear. The best we can hope for is that this doesn't provoke too much resentment, and that the desire for a peaceful-existence-no-matter-what triumphs over 'revenge'/re-ordering-through-violence desires.
It's not gonna be the brightest day for democracy either way.
I think this was pretty inevitable, but it could've been done better. I think you can all guess who'll get the blame when the democratic process ends up looking like a conveyor-belt to feed outside interests. Yup, the US. And as far as i'm concerned, negating that impression, and reality, would've won a whole lot of hearts and minds in the long run, and saved a whole load from being snuffed out too.
chicagofrog
02-01-05, 09:02 AM
Hi, Yoda, Mose and Sedai!
to "what?" and "translate", i'd just answer, think about it a while outside of ready-made conceptions you learn at school, and you'd get my point.
of course, if you are able to consider for a sec, unlike most Americans (oh yeah, kill me for this, but it's true!!), that there's not ONE f.uckin' perfect system of government and you are the ones to have found it (or taken it after the French or whatever other model)...
Now, if the voters (ie, the citizens, or serfs if you will), aren't active in the politics of the nation, that just leaves it to the politicians, and we certainly can't have that.
i never said voters are not active, i said they are not the only ones to be considered.
You have even the slightest idea about what it is like to live under American democracy.
of course, who has? i live on Mars. ;)
When the entire world can't seem to come up with a better system, and you somehow have.
the entire world? it doesn't mean a thing, teach the entire world bananas are vegetables, and the entire world will believe it too after a while.
i'm talking lack of alternatives. not because they don't exist, but because they don't teach you they do, or silent them, and they don't appear on TV or newspapers, etc. etc. etc.
I have never lived in France, or even been there, so I can't possibly know a damn thing about what life is REALLY like there.
difference is,
1) i speak (more or less ;) ) yr language,
2) i've been/lived there,
3) i've had hundreds various kinds of relationships with Americans,
4) we in Europe grow up with American TV shows and movies and novels and comics like you definitely don't in the US with European arts and cultures
I work hard every day to support myself, my girlfriend, and to uphold the system that I believe to be the best choice we have at the moment.
man, i respect you and i respect that! believe me, and don't mind so much my intentionally aggressive language sometimes, tis my style, is all.
but for a sec, i'd want all of you "working hard to uphold a system you believe to be the best choice" to respect just equally and fairly people who have conceptions/ideals/opinions you may not agree with, and that equally work hard for their ideals, even if these are so far away from yours!
now, you talk logics, for me this is logics!!
This is called working hard for an ideal.
yeah, you won't teach me that! see above and below. i've taken risks you probably haven't, for political ideals. and i still do.
Also, voters aren't the only ones active in politics in America. This statement is directly out to lunch. Of course these people are all voters, as that is how democracy works, with votes and stuff.
of course, so you respect people only if they accept the same system YOU support, that is voting and all. and you call that respect? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
that's like French who are not racists at all, oh no :rolleyes: ! as long as Arabs dress like them, listen to the same kind of music and give up their own language to speak only French. that's the principle of integration, and for me the personification of true racism: make others like you are yourself, and then, only then, can you accept them! oh great!
that's what i reproach to (most) Americans.
you call yourself tolerant, and i know you're intelligent, but your limits just SUCK! and those limits, you set yourself, no one else, or you shouldn't let them!
now, me:
1) i've never voted and i never will. i don't blindly accept a system cuz it's not the worst one, i keep looking for something better.
2) inquire a lil bit more about what happens in other countries and you'll see democracy is used everywhere to rule over peoples. French use it in New-Caledonia just like Marroquis use it in West-Sahara, Spaniards prohibit the Asturian nationalist vote cuz they won't write in the language of the colonialists, French do the same with Bretons and Basques and Corsicans, and THE ONLY SOLUTION IS NOT TO VOTE, if you won't betray your ideals. so you have to find other ways of struggle. you publish a Corsican dictionary, a novel..., you make a movie in Breton about the Breton duchess, you publish articles in newspapers denouncing what the government does, you replace a French flag with a Breton one or an Italian with a Genovese one, ... and you do much more than if you just go to vote and accept the rules the dominating party imposed on you!
and don't tell me these examples are far away from you, i won't begin a conversation on Hawai, Porto Rico or even Texas and "New" Mexico here.
so sorry, but your political experience seems rather limited to me. the system you choose to uphold may not be bad, but i don't accept your tolerance stopping there where i say one doesn't have to vote to make a statement, especially when NOT VOTING makes that statement.
it's ridiculous even never have thought about that... never considered not voting as a protest?
and a tolerance that stops somewhere (other than where the other's tolerance stops) is no tolerance.
so, i don't vote, and for you, i'm out?
know what? it's because so many people think like that that the only remaining way to be active or heard sometimes is terrorism!
listen to the points of view expressed in other ways than voting, learn to respect their opinion, even if their opinion is being against what you call democracy, against voting, ... and maybe they won't put a bomb!
(if they still do, well, they deserve what'll happen to them)
Without voting, it would be a different system, get it
yeah, and another system may be right, if not in the US, maybe in other countries with different conditions, situation and history, stop imposing YOUR SYSTEM on other peoples!
or if you don't, well, then i agree, there's no discussion possible, and that's where war begins, sadly enough - we all see and know the sad results
Piddzilla
02-01-05, 10:48 AM
I can think of a few :skeptical: and a number of :confused: about this election, but I think this single day was a very refreshing day and a proud moment for, historically, a very humiliated people. They deserved it.
Hi, Yoda, Mose and Sedai!
to "what?" and "translate", i'd just answer, think about it a while outside of ready-made conceptions you learn at school, and you'd get my point.Um, it's not that we couldn't comprehend the idea; it's that we didn't understand what you were saying.
of course, if you are able to consider for a sec, unlike most Americans (oh yeah, kill me for this, but it's true!!), that there's not ONE f.uckin' perfect system of government and you are the ones to have found it (or taken it after the French or whatever other model)...Is there one specific way of governing effectively? No. Is there one broad way of governing effectively? Yes, and it's called self-rule. That's effectively what "democracy" means to most of us in this context. It means some form of self-rule. It does not mean America's representative Republican, or Switzerland's Federal Assembly, or any specific type of democracy. It only means a land in which people ultimately govern themselves.
No one is under the delusion that this is perfect; only that it has been unequivocally shown to be vastly superior to any form of tyranny, monarchy, or communism.
the entire world? it doesn't mean a thing, teach the entire world bananas are vegetables, and the entire world will believe it too after a while.
i'm talking lack of alternatives. not because they don't exist, but because they don't teach you they do, or silent them, and they don't appear on TV or newspapers, etc. etc. etc.Okay, enlighten us: what alternatives are there, and where can we see their successes?
but for a sec, i'd want all of you "working hard to uphold a system you believe to be the best choice" to respect just equally and fairly people who have conceptions/ideals/opinions you may not agree with, and that equally work hard for their ideals, even if these are so far away from yours!
now, you talk logics, for me this is logics!!You're being vague; it's all well and good to say that we should respect people who disagree, but that's not an absolute. Some ideas are poor, or even dangerous, and frankly are not deserving of respect. So let's hear these ideals, and see how they hold up.
now, me:
1) i've never voted and i never will. i don't blindly accept a system cuz it's not the worst one, i keep looking for something better.Rejecting the good because it's not perfect is just about the worst reason for rejecting something I can think of. Has it occurred to you that the best way to improve the current system is not to shun it, but to improve it from within? That's why democracy is so universally praised; it is a form of government which you can actually oppose and even reform by participating it. Try that with a dictatorship sometime.
2) inquire a lil bit more about what happens in other countries and you'll see democracy is used everywhere to rule over peoples. French use it in New-Caledonia just like Marroquis use it in West-Sahara, Spaniards prohibit the Asturian nationalist vote cuz they won't write in the language of the colonialists, French do the same with Bretons and Basques and Corsicans, and THE ONLY SOLUTION IS NOT TO VOTE, if you won't betray your ideals. so you have to find other ways of struggle. you publish a Corsican dictionary, a novel..., you make a movie in Breton about the Breton duchess, you publish articles in newspapers denouncing what the government does, you replace a French flag with a Breton one or an Italian with a Genovese one, ... and you do much more than if you just go to vote and accept the rules the dominating party imposed on you!Sure, anything of value and worth can be twisted and perverted; even democracy. All you're doing here is showing that there are times where it is reasonable and sensible not to vote. Unless any of us are under these most extraordinary of circumstances, though, it's all irrelevant.
so, i don't vote, and for you, i'm out?
know what? it's because so many people think like that that the only remaining way to be active or heard sometimes is terrorism!
listen to the points of view expressed in other ways than voting, learn to respect their opinion, even if their opinion is being against what you call democracy, against voting, ... and maybe they won't put a bomb!
(if they still do, well, they deserve what'll happen to them)I think this is called "appeasement." It hasn't worked all that well in the past.
yeah, and another system may be right, if not in the US, maybe in other countries with different conditions, situation and history, stop imposing YOUR SYSTEM on other peoples!
or if you don't, well, then i agree, there's no discussion possible, and that's where war begins, sadly enough - we all see and know the sad resultsThis is just downright ignorant. First of all, we're not literally imposing our system on anybody. The Iraqis are set to elect a parliament, who I believe will then elect a President and two Vice Presidents, the three of whom will then elect a Prime Minister. This is very different from the American system.
Now, speaking more generally, I'd point out that it's technically impossible to impose genuine democracy on people. That'd be like trying to force someone to do what they want. The only thing self-rule imposes is choice.
I think froggie's under that misconception that France is socialist ;) (i'm allowed to criticise you froggles, i'm a Brit. We're traditional enemies innit :) ;)).Probably. He's speaking in very abstract terms, and imagine it is to avoid using words like socialism or communism, which he probably realizes have very negative connotations among free, self-governing people.
Not to put a downer on things, but this election still means very little on its own. Whoever gets elected will only have negligible control over governance as i understand it. IMF control over economic policy means their social spending will be capped and their international economic policy dictated, while previously established contracts mean their major industrial and social programs are already under others' juristiction to a great degree.
So you see, whoever gets in is gonna look like a stooge government whatever, and won't be able to make many/any meaningful independent political actions.
They'll just be caretakers for foreign interests. And that much will be clear. The best we can hope for is that this doesn't provoke too much resentment, and that the desire for a peaceful-existence-no-matter-what triumphs over 'revenge'/re-ordering-through-violence desires.
It's not gonna be the brightest day for democracy either way.
I think this was pretty inevitable, but it could've been done better. I think you can all guess who'll get the blame when the democratic process ends up looking like a conveyor-belt to feed outside interests. Yup, the US. And as far as i'm concerned, negating that impression, and reality, would've won a whole lot of hearts and minds in the long run, and saved a whole load from being snuffed out too.I think you're projecting your own concerns and disagreements onto the Iraqis. You pay an awful lot of attention to contract bidding and the like, but what reason, if any, do you have for believing this is of more than minimal importance to the Iraqi people? If your uncle had been killed by a despotic regime, and a foreign country invaded and setup democratic rule, and you were given, for the first time in your life, a chance to vote, do you really think your primary concern would be what logo was on the construction dozer building the school in your neighborhood?
Frankly, how else could it have been done? I doubt it could have been done internally, so foreign oversight, at least at this stage, was inevitable. So what was the alternative? Letting in many of the same people who did not suffer the costs of bringing it about in the first place or -- worse still -- opposed its happening at all?
I think this entire line of thinking lacks perspective, to put it mildly.
chicagofrog
02-01-05, 12:14 PM
hei, some good points there, Yoda! :cool:
Is there one specific way of governing effectively? No.
No one is under the delusion that this is perfect; only that it has been unequivocally shown to be vastly superior to any form of tyranny, monarchy, or communism..
yeah, i do prefer it to communism. i don't like it when people are forced to be equal, when they're not. (probably you won't agree on this one either... i knew it)
to tyranny, no comment, goes per se...
monarchy, i'm not sure, at all!. actually i prefer it.
BUT, it doesn't mean i'd wanna apply it to any country in the world, just like democracy is not the perfect system adaptable/ideal to any national tradition, monarchy isn't i guess.
what i wanna stress is justly this: not one system is, i believe, "broad" enough, like you say, to be the only good one for every nation/people...
and if someone thinks he's found the right one where he lives, he should keep in mind that may not apply somewhere else.
You're being vague; it's all well and good to say that we should respect people who disagree, but that's not an absolute. Some ideas are poor, or even dangerous, and frankly are not deserving of respect. So let's hear these ideals, and see how they hold up.
my vagueness is my tolerance. i don't admit any limiting view of "dangerous ideas", that's a nazi way of fighting, for example, nazism.
where do you set the limitation of what is acceptable then? if you say, well, okay, everything against democracy should be prohibited in a democracy (and it oftens IS, even if only implicitly), re-define democracy.
1) if i can't speak because i'm a monarchist, then, yes, i'll fight for my ideas, but of course, being logical, not by voting!
2) if you let me speak because i'm not dangerous, but wouldn't let another guy speak because you consider his ideas to be, then again, i'd be ready to struggle for that guy's rights of expression, even if i disagree with his ideas.
3) i'd fight equally against a monarchy, where no other idea than the monarchist one would be allowed to express itself in movies, books, TV, schools...
Has it occurred to you that the best way to improve the current system is not to shun it, but to improve it from within?
you can keep on calling ignorant dumbos all who don't agree with you if you want. "has it occured to you?", pff! :rolleyes:
but yes, democracy, even if i don't consider it the best system everywhere, could be highly improved.
Try that with a dictatorship sometime.
i see you and your flawed thinking here: anyone against democracy is for dictatorship??
again, pff!
All you're doing here is showing that there are times where it is reasonable and sensible not to vote. Unless any of us are under these most extraordinary of circumstances, though, it's all irrelevant.
not at all, and i knew you'd say that, and i gave examples (you wouldn't agree with anyway, but i don't care, since unlike you i don't think everyone should agree or that there is only ONE truth!)
First of all, we're not literally imposing our system on anybody.
yeah, not literally! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
like you had no influence ever in the Golfe, Vietnam and North Corea, even today! or Iran, which may be next!
The only thing self-rule imposes is choice
for the options/parties you are allowed to vote for!
(even where these other options exist, they don't give them 2'' free speech on TV... and you know the influence of medias on people, or you don't want to?)
chicagofrog
02-01-05, 12:22 PM
Probably. He's speaking in very abstract terms, and imagine it is to avoid using words like socialism or communism, which he probably realizes have very negative connotations among free, self-governing people.
.
see how wrong you can be!
plus you should by now know me better: do i ever care using words that have negative connotations? these are based on ignorance, and i never gave a damn. you know me a lil bit and you know i ***** on everything politically correct.
call me fascist next time, i don't give a *****!
for me it is a political system like others, giving the possibility of intelligent conversations on the merits and flaws of a system, cuz me (not you!) i have NO TABOOS! i don't like it for the same reasons i am against communism, since i am an elitist. (politically incorrect word nowadays, this says it all!) :mad:
you wanna hear what a possible model is for me? the Platonic republic.
yes, seriously. and if people don't know what it is cuz they don't read, it doesn't prove Plato wrong, it proves ignorance rules democracy!
yeah, i do prefer it to communism. i don't like it when people are forced to be equal, when they're not. (probably you won't agree on this one either... i knew it)
to tyranny, no comment, goes per se...
monarchy, i'm not sure, at all!. actually i prefer it.
BUT, it doesn't mean i'd wanna apply it to any country in the world, just like democracy is not the perfect system adaptable/ideal to any national tradition, monarchy isn't i guess.
what i wanna stress is justly this: not one system is, i believe, "broad" enough, like you say, to be the only good one for every nation/people...
and if someone thinks he's found the right one where he lives, he should keep in mind that may not apply somewhere else.It's odd that you should dislike communism for the reason you do, yet approve of monarchy. Communism, as you pointed out, presumes an equality of ability and capacity that does not exist. But monarchy does something very similar: it assumes that a certain bloodline is inherently superior. This is, if not a contradiction, certainly bordering on one.
Simple question: should people be allowed to choose their leaders, if they so desire?
my vagueness is my tolerance. i don't admit any limiting view of "dangerous ideas", that's a nazi way of fighting, for example, nazism.
where do you set the limitation of what is acceptable then? if you say, well, okay, everything against democracy should be prohibited in a democracy (and it oftens IS, even if only implicitly), re-define democracy.
1) if i can't speak because i'm a monarchist, then, yes, i'll fight for my ideas, but of course, being logical, not by voting!
2) if you let me speak because i'm not dangerous, but wouldn't let another guy speak because you consider his ideas to be, then again, i'd be ready to struggle for that guy's rights of expression, even if i disagree with his ideas.
3) i'd fight equally against a monarchy, where no other idea than the monarchist one would be allowed to express itself in movies, books, TV, schools...That's a non-sequitur. We weren't talking about what should be allowed, only what should be respected. Indeed, it is perfectly legal and safe to openly support monarchy in the United States, as it should be. You just won't persuade many people, is all. Which is also how it should be.
you can keep on calling ignorant dumbos all who don't agree with you if you want. "has it occured to you?", pff! :rolleyes:
It's a turn of phrase, not a comment on your intelligence. If you object to that kind of wording, though, perhaps you should begin with yourself:"of course, if you are able to consider for a sec."
"it's ridiculous even never have thought about that... never considered not voting as a protest?"
Sound familiar?
but yes, democracy, even if i don't consider it the best system everywhere, could be highly improved.Okay. How could it be improved?
Also, what would be the best system in other places, and why?
i see you and your flawed thinking here: anyone against democracy is for dictatorship??
again, pff!Come off it. I was saying no such thing.
not at all, and i knew you'd say that, and i gave examples (you wouldn't agree with anyway, but i don't care, since unlike you i don't think everyone should agree or that there is only ONE truth!)You probably knew I'd say it because it was the logical thing to say in response.
You keep going on about "one truth" as if we're talking chocolate-versus-vanilla, rather than liberty-versus-oppression. Freedom is not a cultural preference. It is a right. And I take no shame whatsoever in admitting that if you do not agree on this point, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. The idea that freedom is a privilege which can be given or taken away at whim is responsible for countless deaths and immeasurable suffering.
yeah, not literally! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
like you had no influence ever in the Golfe, Vietnam and North Corea, even today! or Iran, which may be next!You're changing the subject. The point is that we are not imposing our system either literally or abstractly. They use a different type of government, and imposing self-rule is, by definition, impossible.
for the options/parties you are allowed to vote for!Any democracy that limits which candidates you can vote for is obviously not a real democracy at all. Which are you referring to here?
(even where these other options exist, they don't give them 2'' free speech on TV... and you know the influence of medias on people, or you don't want to?)A television station is private property. Just as free speech allows a candidate to run for elected office, and allows you to support or shun them, it also allows the owner of a television station to choose what he or she broadcasts.
see how wrong you can be!
plus you should by now know me better: do i ever care using words that have negative connotations? these are based on ignorance, and i never gave a damn. you know me a lil bit and you know i ***** on everything politically correct.
call me fascist next time, i don't give a *****!You need to calm down.
for me it is a political system like others, giving the possibility of intelligent conversations on the merits and flaws of a system, cuz me (not you!) i have NO TABOOS! i don't like it for the same reasons i am against communism, since i am an elitist. (politically incorrect word nowadays, this says it all!) :mad:This is silly. The fact that I consider certain "political systems" foolish does not make them "taboo." It just means that they have clearly shown themselves to be inferior across multiple time periods and cultures.
you wanna hear what a possible model is for me? the Platonic republic.
yes, seriously. and if people don't know what it is cuz they don't read, it doesn't prove Plato wrong, it proves ignorance rules democracy!If the people are ignorant, then yes, ignorance rules democracy. A democracy is only a reflection of the people who live under it.
By a Platonic republic, I suppose you mean some form of aristocracy (though you would probably think of it as a meritocracy) wherein the virtuous and wise rule. My question is simple, then: who decides who the virtuos and wise are?
chicagofrog
02-01-05, 01:13 PM
You need to calm down.
hei, side Nr. 5 and red doesn't mean i'm nervous!
:D :p
This is silly. The fact that I consider certain "political systems" foolish does not make them "taboo."
considering them "foolish" is okay as long as you still allow people to express their opinion on them, that is, even they're pro and you're contra.
and "foolish" is different than what you said, "dangerous", which means, be honest, that you mean to forbid their expressing such opinions!
By a Platonic republic, I suppose you mean some form of aristocracy (though you would probably think of it as a meritocracy) wherein the virtuous and wise rule.
right.
My question is simple, then: who decides who the virtuous and wise are
and you know the answer is not. i guess it would be different in each tradition, like in Tibet they don't choose, but recognize, someone to be the reincarnation of a previous lama, but of course it's all based on their Tibetan buddhism beliefs, and wouldn't apply to Europe or Iraq. so i guess i'm not the one to tell you ONE system of decision valid for any country (it would be contradicting myself)... France has a very long monarchist tradition, and it may be something to begin with, or not. of course, i don't see the US having such a tradition.
the system of selection should be based on each people's national traditions is the common factor i can think of.
like in Greece, the tradition was linked to the belief "healthy mind in a healthy body"...
but even America has such traditions: the Iroquois had a federation, and it was a matriarchal system. the Sioux had a patriarchal one. more than democracy, it was a gerontocracy, which may be another interesting system to consider, and which nowadays could theoretically be improved. of course again, it doesn't apply to other Americans than these peoples i mentioned, among other Native American peoples. but it gives you an example of traditional systems that have a long history, and weren't proven wrong - in fact, they even worked quite well as long as no foreign culture first influenced, and then imposed its government(s) on them. and this, on your territory, the US.
you have to understand i don't discriminately attack (American) democracy but i can't stand it when people (especially intelligent and even nice ones like yourself) rejects any other alternative as being "dangerous", scandalous, "foolish" etc. etc. etc... and especially "taboo", meaning you'd vote for not publishing those dangerous books! (which for example happens in Germany whenever it's not pro-Israeli!)
:rolleyes:
Frog, massive post and I will answer more in depth later. At no point did I come down on your beliefs, or try to impose anything on you, and I would thank you not to attempt to attribute these ideas to me, when I haven't actually articulated them on the boards. I was pointing out what appeared to be a lack of knowledge about American democracy. Also, I have 'Not'voted" in protest before, and you seem to want to dress me up in a suit I don't wear. I find many flaws in our system, and at no point thought it was perfect, or claimed it was perfect, but I do believe it is the best we have at this time for a system of government. Of course it needs improvement (lets start with the judicial system), and of course I don't believe there can ever be a perfect system.
Also, Not every American sits around getting all their information from television! If you say you have had massive exposure to television/films/books from America, I say your view is skewed, as ALL the information you recieve is skewed, the same as it would be if I had only those outlets to go by. I keep bringing up Animal Farm in threads, but it applies here again. I can look around myself, go outside, see what is happeneing and figure out what is going on sround me, or I can listen to what people are telling me is happening, and attempt to formulate an idea based on this information. I.E. I buy into the propaganda machine, or I don't. I choose not to buy into it. My point is, If you gleen all your infor from TV and newspapers, you are hearing only what those people want you to hear, but I'm sure you already know this! ;)
Also, Our country is severely divided right now, and it seems impossible to lump America into one big group soldiering along behind GW Bush, because that just isn't what is happening. I only need look outside to see this....
and "foolish" is different than what you said, "dangerous", which means, be honest, that you mean to forbid their expressing such opinions!
You hang out with Django? No one is attacking you, Didier :) No one is silencing anyone, as far as I can see.
To build on what Sedai said... If you look at the most recent election map you'll see the East and West coasts voted for the liberal candidate while the middle of the country voted for the conservative candidate. Going back to an early post by Frog, you mentioned you knew about America partially from watching tv and movies. I would argue this is the primary reason your view of our country is so skewed. The majority of our country is not represented by the filth and trash coming out of Hollywood and New York. Rather, we are honest, hard-working people who simply want less taxes and a less intrusive government. The two coasts, IMHO, represent most of what's wrong with this country.
I'll try to post more later, but am swamped at work.
I live on the coast :(
It's all my fault, I knew it. I want a less intrusive government though.
chicagofrog
02-01-05, 01:58 PM
hei, dear Sedai,
At no point did I come down on your beliefs, or try to impose anything on you, and I would thank you not to attempt to attribute these ideas to me
if my words could have been interpreted like that, i'm sorry for my English being what it is, too imperfect (so not only democracy can be improved :p ;) ), i meant "government(s)" imposing something, not you.
Also, Not every American sits around getting all their information from television!
and i wasn't saying "America" as if other countries weren't concerned, or just as influenced by medias. i took it for granted it was a known fact that most people, all over the world, get thru all kinds influences: family, then school, then medias, and this last one applies everywhere and always more, just the same in all Europe, Japan, China... except maybe in some remnants of traditional cultures in very small communities, like in some African villages, where the influence of the medias is not so present/absent, replaced mainly by the first one mentioned above: family. then village community.
I.E. I buy into the propaganda machine, or I don't. I choose not to buy into it.
you know, i think the degree of propaganda our parents and school had on us, on them, on anybody, is not so easy to get rid of, or to be completely dismissed. tis not only the medias of course. what, do you know, come what your childhood?
plus medias are not only negative: one can increase his/her knowledge thru movies and books (comparing these to what one's parents/family/friends/teachers told them), although these movies and books in some way are instruments of some kinda propaganda. let's say freedom is: choosing your own kinda propaganda. no art is neutral! or do you believe it can be?
Also, Our country is severely divided right now, and it seems impossible to lump America into one big group soldiering along behind GW Bush
i ain't saying that, and i was there during the campaign, in Illinois and Ohio (which after all voted differently). but democrats and republicans BOTH have what seems to me to be a naive (sometimes blind) faith in democracy, and the fact it is relatively recent there may explain why you find much more perplexity and doubt in the old world, and more protests too, than in the US. and Americans, it seems, have even more faith than Europeans in the fairness of elections and the politicians etc., generally speaking. in France people vote for a president cuz they know, or think, the other one would be worse. that's more intelligent, like it or not, than thinking one is the devil and the other one an angel.
thanx for the constructive conversation. :)
chicagofrog
02-01-05, 02:02 PM
The majority of our country is not represented by the filth and trash coming out of Hollywood and New York. .
actually, i was thinking more news and newspapers than movies when i said medias.
as for Hollywood and NY, it's much trash but not enough to hide the pearls there!
The two coasts, IMHO, represent most of what's wrong with this country.
now i see what your opinion and politics are.
for me,
the two coasts and Chicago (maybe Madison and Twin Cities too) is what CAN BE SAVED of the US.
actually, i was thinking more news and newspapers than movies when i said medias.
as for Hollywood and NY, it's much trash but not enough to hide the pearls there!
.
now i see what your opinion and politics are.
for me,
the two coasts and Chicago (maybe Madison and Twin Cities too) is what CAN BE SAVED of the US.
That's fine... You believe in a more socialist style government while I believe in a government with very limited powers... We'll have to agree to disagree, though I will point out the most successful nation in the history of the world was based on a system by the people, for the people, and whose power was initially very limited. We've gone away from that recently and I think that's part of the reason our country's moral values and economic power are on the decline. I should admit I am in Michigan and our economy is based on the automotive industry so I am often more doom and gloom than the GDP numbers indicate :)
actually, i was thinking more news and newspapers than movies when i said medias.
as for Hollywood and NY, it's much trash but not enough to hide the pearls there!
Well that's actually worse, IMHO. At least movies and television are passed off as being fictional... The media, which is incredibly biased (that's a completely different topic though) passes the garbage they spew as being news when in fact it's usually a op/ed piece.
chicagofrog
02-01-05, 02:26 PM
That's fine... You believe in a more socialist style government while I believe in a government with very limited powers...
read my other posts in this thread and you'll see i'm not precisely a socialist.
tis more that if i have a girlfriend in NY, LA and Chitown, she probably doesn't have to hide me from her parents cuz i'm no christian.
hei, dear Sedai,
you know, i think the degree of propaganda our parents and school had on us, on them, on anybody, is not so easy to get rid of, or to be completely dismissed. tis not only the medias of course. what, do you know, come what your childhood?
This is an excellent point, and one that has bothering me quite a bit lately. These mediums inflict vast changes on the mind of a child, and I hate how a lot of the sales and marketing plans are now aimed at very young children. I mean, I am all about a free market, but not one that is geared towards selling product to people who can't possibly know if they even need it or not (ie 3 year olds).
Another quick note: I am neither democrat nor republican :)
I apologize... I'm an ignorant American and can't understand much of your posts... I still contend if you feel New York and San Fransico are what's right with this country you are a socialist... but that's just MHO.
the two coasts and Chicago (maybe Madison and Twin Cities too) is what CAN BE SAVED of the US.
I'm sure I'll hear about it for this one, but I tend to lean towards this view as well, with the frog. I tend to scope it out a bit differently. I would like much less government involvement, like Mose, but a liberal society, like the frog. Unfortunately, it appears some sort of utopia is required for this to occur, as a great deal of personal responsibility is involved, and humans just can't seem to get the hang of this concept as a race. Really, the more people learn about my political views, the more they realise that I am just a confused person politically. I am no expert, and don't ever expect to be. If I put more energy into politics, my stress levels tend to rise, and my quality of life goes down, so I have to stay a little bit daft about things to stay sane. I do know this:
I want my freedoms protected. (This means you, righty fascists)
I want myself protected from assault by those who wish to do me harm. I will take part in protecting myself.
I want a free, open market with the entire planet.
I don't want anyone deciding what information is dangerous for me, of if it isn't, that is my job. (This means you, lefty fascists)
I want my friends to be able to smake a cigarette while we enjoy a cocktail if they so choose. (Again with the lefties here)
I want my girlfriend to be able to decide for herself, issues having to do with her personal self (righties again here).
I want religion OUT of the government, at all times.
I want people who don't like smoke to be able to go to the no-smoking restaurant next door, the one in which the owner, who decided he didn't want stinky butts in his place, opened.
Four legs good, two legs bad
Napolean is always right.
Probably. He's speaking in very abstract terms, and imagine it is to avoid using words like socialism or communism, which he probably realizes have very negative connotations among free, self-governing people.
Hmm, methinks you go too far on the socialism thing. I see it as a necessary counter-balance to capitalism, as do the main influential countries in europe (to a degree). But that's a discussion for another thread (though it could come in to this one too, if it runs the course :))
I think you're projecting your own concerns and disagreements onto the Iraqis. ....and you were given, for the first time in your life, a chance to vote, do you really think your primary concern would be what logo was on the construction dozer building the school in your neighborhood?
I'm projecting my concern that Iraqis will come to see their vote as close-to-meaningless when they realise that no matter which government was elected, the county's economic policies (plus industrial international interaction), and to a degree their social policies, have been predetermined by others. That's unlikely to seem like freedom to them, or empowerment. Or a great endorsement of democracy for that matter.
It may not be their primary concern now, but it will be. That's one thing i'm saying....
...the next thing i'm saying is that the US-centric aspect is, was, and always will be a mistake as far as productive reconstruction in Iraq goes...(let me give some more details as to why... :))...
Frankly, how else could it have been done? I doubt it could have been done internally, so foreign oversight, at least at this stage, was inevitable. So what was the alternative? Letting in many of the same people who did not suffer the costs of bringing it about in the first place or -- worse still -- opposed its happening at all?
As i said, the economic/IMF policy-control and the influx of foreign companies were inevitable after an international invasion - which you know i support in theory (if done right ;)).
My argument centres on one core issue: whether the iraqis believe their country is being rebuilt in a way which will be benificial to them (and indeed, whether it is). This is what is key to whether the reconstruction stands or falls (whether hope is maintained, and hate kept at bay - whether unity is formed or fragmentation occurs etc)
The central problem i'm identifying will be very familiar to you, even though i'm talking solely about economic and social aspects here: the US-centric issue.
So yes, i'm talking about "letting in" those outside the coalition, for the good of Iraq, and the world by extension. Want to see why?
Here are two core problems that the US-centric approach has caused and will continue to cause if not rectified:
1 - Inability to use the established political and industrial contacts/expertise of those naughty nations who had been negotiating with Iraq (i.e. France, China et al)
Notice this quote from today's Times (i know, i know, the offical isn't named. Tough. It's about as factually-reliable paper as you'll find)
February 01, 2005
Now let's show the world we can work together
By James Hider
An American diplomat said that in the wake of the elections, new efforts could be made to draw the Baathists into the political arena as part of Dr Allawi’s push for national unity. He said that French officials, who enjoyed strong ties with Saddam’s regime, had been active in opening channels of communication.
“We appreciate their co-operation. They are an influential player in the Middle East,” the American official said. “It’s not a good thing when a group of people is excluded. If you don’t work through that problem then bad things can happen.”
Just as Nazi Germany was sheparded through its early reformation by keeping key Nazi's in positions of authority, so too Iraq should have been handled with the same necessary pragmatism. The French ties alluded to here extend beyond the political sphere, and could theoretically have helped seperate the hard-core Baathists from the subsumed moderates amongst the Baath party.
Instead the Baath party were first dumped wholesale, then tardily brought back into the system, and yet the core issue of distinguishing the 'reformists' from the Baathists remains undone. Even now the apparently moderate United Arab Alliance is threatening to purge the security forces of the Saddam-supporters they perceive amongst it.
Focusing on the present and the future though, it's good that the French are willing to help, no? Let's hope the US "let's" them help some more eh. :p
2 The US will get the blame for the privations of IMF-style reconstruction, and they will rightly be seen as the major 'profiteers'
You talked about the Iraqis caring what badge was on the bulldozer building their school. Trust me they will, if all the badges denote American involvement. They will ask why the expertise to bulldoze should come from so far away, when a Jordanian can bulldoze just as well. They will ask why they have the second biggest oil reserve in the world, yet their social spending is capped, and only so many schools can be built and run. In short, they will ask why they cannot chose to judge how their own wealth should be spent.
The contracts went almost exclusively to US-run companies (despite the greater on-the-ground experience of those naughty nations who had established oil contracts etc). So, the influence and profit heads in that direction too. That will inflame anger. If that profit, and the blame for the IMF's control, were spread amongst the world's major nations (all of whom have claims to competance in the necessary industrial [and security :rolleyes:] fields), then both the reality and the appearance would be of a global intervention for global good (rather than a US intervention for, well, you get the picture ;)).
I think this entire line of thinking lacks perspective, to put it mildly.
Didn't think you'd like it ;) :p
Basically, this is about the central issue which which can't be proved either way: the 'why didn't the others come in?' issue (Or the: 'Did the Bushies insist on too great a controlling interest, and thus negate the possibility of a broad coalition amongst influential nations?' issue, as i'd prefer it ;)). Well, we can't resolve that one - we don't have the facts. All we can do is look at the core flaws in going in with a narrow coalition (and wonder why it was deemed wise/constructive to do so, given these glaring failings).
Froggy... what can i say... you're on a roll ;)
...while I believe in a government with very limited powers... though I will point out the most successful nation in the history of the world was based on a system by the people, for the people... We've gone away from that recently and I think that's part of the reason our country's moral values and economic power are on the decline... I should admit I am in Michigan and our economy is based on the automotive industry...
Ah, so basically what you're saying is that you actually want a government with very extensive powers. i.e. One with the power to protect your industry from a competitive international market.
(Sorry mate, couldn't resist the urge to be facetious. Don't wanna kick you when you're down. Just pointing out that your goverment does actually act for you guys in a very 'protective' way already - just more to the farmers and the plane industry etc than you automotive guys [they're 'intrusive' that way ;)]. Although i must admit i find your 'moral' link a bit stretched [not to mention your 'help-me-out'/'leave-me-alone' stance a bit odd]. Is it moral for an individual to only look after himself? And by extension, would it be moral for a country to only do the same. Just a question :)).
I live on the coast
It's all my fault, I knew it. I want a less intrusive government though. :(
...
I would like much less government involvement, like Mose, but a liberal society, like the frog.
Seds, i do believe you might just be democracy in action :). Just don't start any civil wars with yourself now y'here (or, god forbid, impeach yourself. That could be most embarrasing ;)).
You keep going on about "one truth" as if we're talking chocolate-versus-vanilla, rather than liberty-versus-oppression. Freedom is not a cultural preference. It is a right. And I take no shame whatsoever in admitting that if you do not agree on this point, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. The idea that freedom is a privilege which can be given or taken away at whim is responsible for countless deaths and immeasurable suffering.
Oh, if only i had time to disagree with you properly (but hell, i think i've disagreed with you over most of this stuff before ;) - i just love disagreeing with you. About the details, that is :)).
You'd have a hard time demonstrating that freedom is an automatic right. I think it's an ideal you have to fight for. I think that makes me 'strawberry' under your definitions ;) :P
Henry The Kid
02-01-05, 11:28 PM
To build on what Sedai said... If you look at the most recent election map you'll see the East and West coasts voted for the liberal candidate while the middle of the country voted for the conservative candidate. Going back to an early post by Frog, you mentioned you knew about America partially from watching tv and movies. I would argue this is the primary reason your view of our country is so skewed. The majority of our country is not represented by the filth and trash coming out of Hollywood and New York. Rather, we are honest, hard-working people who simply want less taxes and a less intrusive government. The two coasts, IMHO, represent most of what's wrong with this country.
I'll try to post more later, but am swamped at work.
For the first time in a while, I'm absolutely speechless.
LordSlaytan
02-01-05, 11:45 PM
This entire thread has made my brain poop.
There are so many blanket judgments going on in here the thread should be called, “The ignorant people who know the truth.”
I’ve wanted to respond to Chicagofrog most of all, but I can’t find a continuum in logic that lasts long enough for me to have any clue whatsoever where to ‘jump in’. And Mose, I take offense, bro.
chicagofrog
02-02-05, 08:04 AM
I apologize... I'm an ignorant American and can't understand much of your posts... I still contend if you feel New York and San Francisco are what's right with this country you are a socialist... but that's just MHO.
"me not saying you be ignorant American"... :p :)
but you're choosing to be (i can't believe other than deliberately) ignorant if you think you know better than me what i am.
chicagofrog
02-02-05, 08:15 AM
I’ve wanted to respond to Chicagofrog most of all, but I can’t find a continuum in logic that lasts long enough for me to have any clue whatsoever where to ‘jump in’.
know what? same thing happens to me whenever i read Heidegger, and still he got published and they teach about his books at university in philosophy class! ;)
(i don't have the straight christian way of rhetorics or thought... and your logic is not the only one existing on earth! when you don't understand something, think you may improve your capability of understanding rather than choosing to discard it as illogical...)
Piddzilla
02-02-05, 09:36 AM
I'M FROM SWEDEN!!!!
...what/how am I??
chicagofrog
02-02-05, 09:40 AM
mange takk skal du ha!!
Seds, i do believe you might just be democracy in action :). Just don't start any civil wars with yourself now y'here (or, god forbid, impeach yourself. That could be most embarrasing ;)).
Too late :(
Last night I imposed sanctions on myself, which lead to a violent uprising. I cut of all funding to myself immediately, but corruption took hold, and I ended up blackmailing myself and had to kidnap myself in order to meet my ridiculous demands. After a period of extreme torture (I made myself watch The Amazing Race), I finally relented, released myself and decided to proclaim myself king. The serfs rebelled almost immediately, and I was overthrown, only to retake the castle after a successful sneak attrack while I was at the feast in the great hall. I fought bravely, but alas, I was to much for myself, and was recaptured. It was at this poin I decided to call an emergency meeting of the council of elders, who, seeing as I am only 33, didn't even show up. After firing the elders I again sacked myself, and then proceeded to smite myself. Oh, smote is me.
Govenment sucks, back to McDo for me.
chicagofrog
02-02-05, 10:56 AM
funny Sedai!!
:D :D :) :) :cool:
seeing as I am only 33, didn't even show up.
Govenment sucks, back to McDo for me.
yr avatar made me think you were older than me (and so did the big big green bar you have and all those posts... ;) ), how wrong i was!!
( :( i feel older now...)
enjoy yr burger in the meantime...!! :)
LordSlaytan
02-02-05, 11:44 AM
know what? same thing happens to me whenever i read Heidegger, and still he got published and they teach about his books at university in philosophy class! ;)
(i don't have the straight christian way of rhetorics or thought... and your logic is not the only one existing on earth! when you don't understand something, think you may improve your capability of understanding rather than choosing to discard it as illogical...)Actually, what I meant was that your writing style tends to jump all over the place, and I sometimes have a difficult time following your train of thought. Sometimes you make a statement, someone replies, then you reply with something that really has nothing to do with the reply you're replying to. It gets rather confusing when you change directions right in the middle of a conversation. So it's more a question of style rather than substance. I'm not trying to say you're an idiot. Plus, I use Word when I reply in length, because I don't want to make people suffer with poor spelling, etc...and it's a pain in the ass to read your thoughts when they're intercut with a ton of color, size, font, bold, italic, and underline codes. I'll try better tonight. :)
chicagofrog
02-02-05, 11:54 AM
So it's more a question of style rather than substance.
i know and agree, i was born like this! :p
I'm not trying to say you're an idiot.
everybody knows i'm a dumbass, not an idiot...
and it's a pain in the ass to read your thoughts when they're intercut with a ton of color, size, font, bold, italic, and underline codes. I'll try better tonight.
i can't help but feeling like using the possibilities offered by the special medium this website gives us... plus i'm a sucker for graphics... ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.