What evil

OK help me out here, you typed:

"overtrow an existing GVT" (should I have let the spellchecker fix that?)

I contend Saddam's regime was not a Government

then:

you don’t see that as imposing your own ideals of what is a perfect GVT?

Does that not subsume some equivalence between Saddam's regime and our form of Government.

Certainly if you hold as I do that Saddam's regime was not a legitimate government in the first place then whatever form of self determination the Iraqi's end up with will be superior?

I'm still wondering if you 'don't get it or...'
or are operating from a leftist agenda?

Why do you (or do you even) oppose our actions in Iraq???
 
Now I am beginning to see where you are
'coming from' thanks for clearing that up!
 
Um .... Marc. Iraq was a democracy long before the US showed up. Saddam held elections several times. And won them with a 99% to 100% majority.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/4292206.htm


Iraq declares Saddam election winner

By SAMEER YACOUB

Associated Press


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq declared Saddam Hussein the winner Wednesday with 100 percent of the votes in a referendum in which he was the sole candidate, perpetuating his two-decade reign and prompting bursts of celebratory gunfire in Baghdad's streets.

Saddam's regime said the vote, widely dismissed outside Iraq, showed Iraq's people were standing with their leader against any U.S. attack.

"If there is aggression, the Americans will face these people who said 'yes' to Saddam Hussein," Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council and Saddam's right-hand man, told reporters at Parliament.

Bursts of gunfire exploded in downtown Baghdad as he spoke, as Saddam supporters fired in the air and danced on street corners.

"If the U.S. administration makes a mistake and attacks Iraq, we will fight them," Ibrahim said. "If they come, we will fight them in every village, and every house. Every house will be a front, and every Iraqi will have a role in the war.

"All Iraqis are armed now, and by God's will we will triumph."

The White House had dismissed the one-man race in advance.

"Obviously, it's not a very serious day, not a very serious vote and nobody places any credibility on it," press secretary Ari Fleischer said in Washington on Tuesday.

The vote was also rejected by the Iraqi opposition in exile and others outside Iraq. Many in Tuesday's referendum cast multiple ballots representing votes of entire families, stuffing fistfuls of votes into boxes.

The government offered no explanation for how it tabulated paper ballots from remote regions across the country of 22 million people overnight.

The referendum was a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote on keeping Saddam in power another seven years.

All 11,445,638 eligible voters cast ballots, Ibrahim said. Iraqi officials said popular outrage at American threats to Saddam's regime made the turnout and percentage even higher than the last vote, in 1995, when Saddam received a 99.96 "yes" vote.

In a sharply worded news conference broadcast live on Iraqi TV, Ibrahim dismissed a question terming the 100-percent affirmation for Saddam "absurd."

"Someone who does not know the Iraqi people, he will not believe this percentage, but it is real," Ibrahim said. "Whether it looks that way to someone or not. We don't have opposition in Iraq."

Parliament members were expected to go to Saddam sometime Wednesday to administer the oath of office immediately. Saddam has not appeared in public since December 2000.

The government already had declared the day a national holiday, in advance of the results.

Many Iraqis stayed indoors in the first hours after announcement of the results, fearing stray bullets.

Some men took to the streets amid the gunfire, hopping up and down on street corners with linked arms or hanging out of cars plowing through the streets honking horns.

"This referendum and the 100 percent shows that all Iraqis are ready to defend their country and leader," said Khaled Yusef, one of those dancing.

Watching, retired civil servant Mahmoud Amin insisted Iraqis wanted no other leader.

"We are not surprised with the 100 percent vote for the president, because all Iraqis are steadfast to their president, who has been known to them for 30 years," Amin said.

The vote was widely advertised not only as backing for Saddam but as a rebuke to the United States, which has been pressing in the United Nations Security Council for a resolution that would allow a war to topple Saddam.

Ibrahim referred to the United States as the "forces of injustice and illusion," and called Iraq the land of "civilization and creativity."

Saddam, 65, became president in 1979 in a well-orchestrated transfer of power within his Baath Party.

Iraq has never known democracy, having transferred from a monarchy under British sway to military-backed rule from 1958 onward.

Iraq has been under U.N. Security Council sanctions since invading Kuwait in 1990. U.N. resolutions require the country to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction, but it is widely believed to retain chemical and biological weapons, and the United States has accused it of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The United States wants a new Security Council resolution that would give U.N. weapons inspectors wide powers to uncover Iraq's arms and to trigger a war on Iraq if it resists full inspections.

France has led a campaign in the Security Council to drop from the resolution the idea of an automatic trigger for war.



Do try to keep up, old boy, will you. The present gov't is the same as the old one. It's only missing Saddam's party. And Saddam himself, of course.
 
rrfield said:
My first reaction to The Hug was that of cynicism, a setup exploiting the emotions of the two women, but after watching the Instant Replay everything looks real. Either that or they are bad actresses.


OF COURSE its exploitation. The 'gratitude' was undoubtedly genuine but the entire showcase was undoubtedly a purposefully symbolic set-up. Does anybody else not feel absolute disgust at the lowest measures that can be taken to prop up the political agenda and personality-cult of an American President?

Historically, the State of the Union address was targeted at congress, was it not? Now its a global political extravaganza - political theatre - another propaganda opportunity. With cameras pinned on him and millions watching, what better chance to pull out the most propaganda-like shot yet?

This is, in short - Outrageous.

Yet another of various attempts used to pull on the heart-strings as well as overwhelm the minds of the American people (whether it be Bush, MAO, HITLER...)the techniques are almost entirely the same with any dictatorship. It is nothing more than propaganda - real or not -that fact is besides the point - the fact that it was arranged to occur as a symbolic puppet-show on camera - now that is really pathetic, opportinist swipe at promoting his political agenda through every possible outlet.

I bet they wouldn't have invited the other mothers and relatives of the dead soldiers that now OPPOSE the war and Bush policy simply because they have lost a child to the hypocritical objectives of a token President...?
 
I think that its great that democracy is being exposed to Iraq. I just don’t get how Bush can say in one sentence that he’s promoting democracy and in another that he doesn’t plan or pushing his form of GVT on other countries.



**BTW...In response to your jab re: my spelling skills...I'm working with Microcrap...my only spell-check is MSWord and every time I copy/paste to Word, spell-check and copy/paste it back on here. I get the following.
 
Tha'ts odd... now it works...before, I'd get some seriously weird looking text every time. Or only part of the text along with some vb code...hmmm
 
MrBishop said:
I think that its great that democracy is being exposed to Iraq. I just don’t get how Bush can say in one sentence that he’s promoting democracy and in another that he doesn’t plan or pushing his form of GVT on other countries.



hmmm..."democracy"...yes. But on whos terms?


Which leads us to the question: What exactly IS "DEMOCRACY"

Were you aware that there are TWO completely opposing definitions of the word?

Most people, I seem to believe - only think of the straightfoward definition and not the one which actually exists in contemporary society.


Modern "democratic theory" takes the view that the role of the public -- the "bewildered herd," in Lippmann's words -- is to be spectators, not participants. They're supposed to show up every couple of years to ratify decisions made elsewhere, or to select among representatives of the dominant sectors in what's called an "election." That's helpful, because it has a legitimizing effect.

So there's a dictionary definition of democracy and then a real-world definition.

...The dictionary definition has lots of different dimensions, but, roughly speaking, a society is democratic to the extent that people in it have meaningful opportunities to take part in the formation of public policy. There are a lot of different ways in which that can be true, but insofar as it's true, the society is democratic.

A society can have the formal trappings of democracy and not be democratic at all. The Soviet Union, for example, had elections.

the US seeks to create a form of top-down democracy that leaves traditional structures of power -- basically corporations and their allies -- in effective control. Any form of democracy that leaves the traditional structures essentially unchallenged is admissible. Any form that undermines their power is as intolerable as ever.
That's what a fascist system traditionally was. It can vary in the way it works, but the ideal state that it aims at is absolutist -- top-down control with the public essentially following orders. Fascism is a term from the political domain, so it doesn't apply strictly to corporations, but if you look at them, power goes strictly top-down, from the board of directors to managers to lower managers and ultimately to the people on the shop floor, typists, etc. There's no flow of power or planning from the bottom up. Ultimate power resides in the hands of investors, owners, banks, etc.
People can disrupt, make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. People who aren't owners and investors have nothing much to say about it. They can choose to rent their labor to the corporation, or to purchase the commodities or services that it produces, or to find a place in the chain of command, but that's it. That's the totality of their control over the corporation. That's something of an exaggeration, because corporations are subject to some legal requirements and there is some limited degree of public control. There are taxes and so on. But corporations are more totalitarian than most institutions we call totalitarian in the political arena.
Noam Chomsky - "Secrets, Lies and Democracy"

:shrug:

you decide.
 
After much consideration & thought, I am forced to freely admit that Yes, I fully support imposing freedom on anybody and everybody.
 
Back
Top