DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Universe Prince on September 30, 2006, 12:34:32 AM
-
I apologize if this has already been posted.
Excerpts from an article found at the New York Times website...
For those of you still reading, here we go:
Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year.
Currently, three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being tried here for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who “publicly insults†the government or public officials subject to up to seven years in prison.
On Sept. 7, the police sealed the offices of Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based satellite news channel, for what the government said was inflammatory reporting. And the Committee to Protect Journalists says that at least three Iraqi journalists have served time in prison for writing articles deemed criminally offensive.
The office of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has lately refused to speak with news organizations that report on sectarian violence in ways that the government considers inflammatory; some outlets have been shut down.
In addition to coping with government pressures, dozens of Iraqi journalists have been kidnapped by criminal gangs or detained by the American military, on suspicion that they are helping Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias. One, Bilal Hussein, who photographed insurgents in Anbar Province for The Associated Press, has been in American custody without charges since April.
At Al Arabiya, the Baghdad station shuttered by the Iraqi authorities earlier this month, the studio door handle is sealed in red wax and bound in police tape. (The door is adorned with a photo of Atwar Bahjat, who was kidnapped, tortured and killed in Samarra in February while reporting on the bombing of a Shiite shrine.)
Some news executives express support for Al Arabiya’s closing.
“It is the right of the Iraqi government, as it combats terrorism, to silence any voice that tries to harm the national unity,†said Mr. Sadr, of the Iraqi Media Network.
SOURCE: The New York Times (http://tinyurl.com/nx76b)
-
How will this government justify all this to its people?
Elections will come around again , I hope.
-
How will this government justify all this to its people?
I'm sure there will be talk of national security and "responsible journalism" and stuff like that. Anyway, I thought it was interesting that America's efforts to spread democracy and freedom are having as one result in Iraq the passing of laws that criminalize criticism of the government and/or government officials. I wonder if there is, somewhere in Iraq, a discussion about this that includes someone saying (in his native language of course), "Yeah, but what freedoms have you really lost?"
-
How will this government justify all this to its people?
I wonder if there is, somewhere in Iraq, a discussion about this that includes someone saying (in his native language of course), "Yeah, but what freedoms have you really lost?"
Since the time of Saddam what freedoms were there to loose?
-
Since the time of Saddam what freedoms were there to loose?
Hmmmm...An article in the paper this morning (and on the 'net yesterday, something about Iraqi's being quick change artists these days) was telling how Shia's, travelling from one neighborhood to another, carry a picture of one of the bigwig Sunni leaders with them, to convince people they are Sunni if they are stopped. If they don't lie about their religious affiliation, they run the risk of being killed by militias.
I don't recall that that was a problem under Saddam.
(Wait for it...wait for it...)
-
There are not Mass graves full of Shia dateing from Saddams time?
Wait for what?
-
Since the time of Saddam what freedoms were there to loose?
I thought at least one would have been obvious. But maybe your attitude is the correct one. Maybe the Iraqis shouldn't care about lost freedoms and just accept whatever their government does, because they have't really specificially lost anything. As BT has pointed out, if you never really had it, you can't claim to have lost it, so you have no reason to complain. A good man could not ask for a better excuse to do nothing.
-
Since the time of Saddam what freedoms were there to loose?
I thought at least one would have been obvious. But maybe your attitude is the correct one. Maybe the Iraqis shouldn't care about lost freedoms and just accept whatever their government does, because they have't really specificially lost anything. As BT has pointed out, if you never really had it, you can't claim to have lost it, so you have no reason to complain. A good man could not ask for a better excuse to do nothing.
Who did nothing?
My point is that with the stakes so low it was worth the chance at improvement?
There was always a chance to fail , is there still a chance to succeed?
-
“It is the right of the Iraqi government, as it combats terrorism, to silence any voice that tries to harm the national unity,†said Mr. Sadr, of the Iraqi Media Network
Wasn't this the same justification Mikey used to defend Castro for silencing critics?
-
There are not Mass graves full of Shia dateing from Saddams time?
Saddam could care less whether anyone was Shia or Sunni. What he cared about was that they were not opposing him in any way. His war against the (Shia) 'marsh Arabs' in the south was solely because they were rebelling against his rule, not because they were Shia. He could care less what sect you belonged to, as long as you were loyal to him. You ran no risk of being yanked off the street and summarily executed simply for your religion.
Wait for what?
Exactly what you provided, that last refuge of those who are all for the war in Iraq - the excuse that things were worse under Saddam.
-
Who did nothing?
You're missing the point. The excuse that someone (Iraqi, American, whoever) has no reason to complain because that someone never really had this or that freedom and so never really lost it, is an excuse for good men to do nothing, a justification for apathy.
My point is that with the stakes so low it was worth the chance at improvement?
There was always a chance to fail , is there still a chance to succeed?
Is there still a chance to succeed? Does it look like they're succeeding? Iraqi reporters and journalists are being shot, beaten and blown up by people who don't like the more agressive journalism that had begun to occur in the supposedly free Iraq. And now, the government of Iraq has decided it needs "a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code". Does that look like success to you? Oh gee, it's not as bad as it was... they're just getting started and already they're criminalizing criticizing the government, borrowing legal language from the man we supposedly deposed because he was a tyrant. I can't say that gives me much hope for a free Iraq, because it doesn't. But then again, maybe to some folks in this country, where some people have said that the staff of The New York Times should be tried for treason, this sort of thing looks like an improvement. Which wouldn't give me hope either.
-
Good to see you again, UP.
Been following your discussion 'tween runs. I gotta admit, I agree with you - we went to war supposedly to stop things like this, and give them a free democracy, along the lines of what we have. Um, wait..."in this country, where some people have said that the staff of The New York Times should be tried for treason"...okay, so maybe they're quick learners, after all.
A lot of the things I used to be proud of in this country are being chipped away and falling to the wayside. Small wonder some would be happy with only doing a half-assed job in Iraq.
-
Good to see you again, UP.
Thanks. I check on the place from time to time. Good to see you're still about as well.
A lot of the things I used to be proud of in this country are being chipped away and falling to the wayside.
I know the feeling.
-
Who did nothing?
You're missing the point. The excuse that someone (Iraqi, American, whoever) has no reason to complain because that someone never really had this or that freedom and so never really lost it, is an excuse for good men to do nothing, a justification for apathy.
My point is that with the stakes so low it was worth the chance at improvement?
There was always a chance to fail , is there still a chance to succeed?
Is there still a chance to succeed? Does it look like they're succeeding? Iraqi reporters and journalists are being shot, beaten and blown up by people who don't like the more agressive journalism that had begun to occur in the supposedly free Iraq. And now, the government of Iraq has decided it needs "a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code". Does that look like success to you? Oh gee, it's not as bad as it was... they're just getting started and already they're criminalizing criticizing the government, borrowing legal language from the man we supposedly deposed because he was a tyrant. I can't say that gives me much hope for a free Iraq, because it doesn't. But then again, maybe to some folks in this country, where some people have said that the staff of The New York Times should be tried for treason, this sort of thing looks like an improvement. Which wouldn't give me hope either.
Doing nothing would have left Saddam where he was .
A Decade earlyer Bush 41 stopped short of deposeing Saddam and waited for the upriseing of the people to polish him off like Mousoulini , well it seemed like a good idea at the time , but it got a lot of Shiite killed , there was a sectarian division at that time and Saddam was on the minority side but he had the better army.
Our goal in Iraq can't be to recreate the US there , there is no potential for that.
The best we can do is put the power in the hands of the people and be a good example for them , the more we micromanage them the longer we will be there.
The Iriqui Army is a new thing it has a few officers from the old corps but it is still a new thing in its coreand in its structure , they are being trained by the best that the US and UN can offer , the police also.
As the Iriqui Government grows in strength not only will they need us less , they will be more apt to contradict our instruction , but what would you rather they did?
-
Doing nothing would have left Saddam where he was .
Oh, well when you put it that way, then the Iraqi government using some of Saddam's old legislation as a foundation for new laws prohibiting criticism of the government is clearly... still completely wrong on every level and a sign that the Iraqi government is headed in exactly the wrong direction. Pooh yi.
A Decade earlyer Bush 41 stopped short of deposeing Saddam and waited for the upriseing of the people to polish him off like Mousoulini , well it seemed like a good idea at the time , but it got a lot of Shiite killed , there was a sectarian division at that time and Saddam was on the minority side but he had the better army.
And things are so much better now. (Hey, that was sarcasm, just so you know.)
Our goal in Iraq can't be to recreate the US there , there is no potential for that.
Really? Ya think?
The best we can do is put the power in the hands of the people and be a good example for them , the more we micromanage them the longer we will be there.
I'm not suggesting we micromanage anything. I'm suggesting that this grand plan to free the people of Iraq from tyranny seems to not be yielding a lack of tyranny. About the only thing we seem to be accomplishing with any great success is creating really good conditions for lots of people to end up killed, beaten, incarcerated or some combination thereof.
The Iriqui Army is a new thing it has a few officers from the old corps but it is still a new thing in its coreand in its structure , they are being trained by the best that the US and UN can offer , the police also.
Yes, as I understand it, the police have a great new structure that has free flowing raw sewage in every room.
As the Iriqui Government grows in strength not only will they need us less , they will be more apt to contradict our instruction , but what would you rather they did?
What would I rather they did? How about, just as a start, protecting freedom of speech rather than legislating censorship? Iraqi reporters and journalists are being beaten and killed, and rather than do something to protect these people, the Iraqi government passed laws banning criticism of the government. Now, in addition to living with the threat of being beaten or killed, the Iraqi reporters and journalists have to live with the threat of being put in jail if they say something offensive to the government. How much worse does the situation have to become before we acknowledge that the end result of Iraq as a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is entirely an illusion so long as we continue down our present course of action?
-
How much worse does the situation have to become before we acknowledge that the end result of Iraq as a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is entirely an illusion so long as we continue down our present course of action?
Do you think that has ever been a real goal?
I'm asking sincerely.
We didn't leave Saddam to be polished off by the Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims after the Gulf War. Quite the opposite. We've always been fearful of a Shi'ite government in Iraq that might have some allegiances to Iran, as well as being a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. We've also been worried about a free Kurdish state and the regional impact that might have on Turkey, Iran, and Syria.
A strong Iraq, or strong enough to avoid being overrun by Iranian agents and terrorist camps, required Saddam. Otherwise we'd have used air support and could have easily aided the Kurds and Shi'ites in their rebellion.
So I ask, is a free democratic Iraq really the goal, or is it something to tell the people at home?
-
How much worse does the situation have to become before we acknowledge that the end result of Iraq as a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is entirely an illusion so long as we continue down our present course of action?
Do you think that has ever been a real goal?
I'm asking sincerely.
I don't know anymore. To be honest, the notion that we were going to free an oppressed people is one of the few ideas that kept me from finding the whole war completely abhorrent. But maybe I was fooling myself to think that was ever a goal. I tend to believe that even when people do something horribly wrong, they do so believing that they are, for whatever reason, doing the right thing. So it seems to me the whole freeing the Iraqis from tyranny has to have been at least a rationalization for sending troops to Iraq. And maybe that is all it was, but the idea of it as a goal was there, I think. A main goal? No. And since the action began, we continue to have the "would you rather Saddam still be in power" hanging over all our heads so that people don't complain too much. Perhaps it really was all propaganda, something to tell the people at home. Perhaps it was an illusion from the beginning. I know that right now it is an illusion, and we have illustration number seven hundred million, nine hundred and thirty-two thousand and something as to why the U.S. government should stop trying to create an American hegemony.
-
Was freeing the opressed the main reason for sending thousands of Americans to Europe in 1943?
-
As the Iriqui Government grows in strength not only will they need us less , they will be more apt to contradict our instruction , but what would you rather they did?
What would I rather they did? How about, just as a start, protecting freedom of speech rather than legislating censorship? Iraqi reporters and journalists are being beaten and killed, and rather than do something to protect these people, the Iraqi government passed laws banning criticism of the government. Now, in addition to living with the threat of being beaten or killed, the Iraqi reporters and journalists have to live with the threat of being put in jail if they say something offensive to the government. How much worse does the situation have to become before we acknowledge that the end result of Iraq as a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is entirely an illusion so long as we continue down our present course of action?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2006, 06:49:52 AM by Universe Prince »
They are odviously not doing this the American way .
But if we interpose ourselves do we humiliate them ?
Are we just going to be a better despot than Saddam?
If all they have is genuine elections they can use the election process to fight any problem, includeing an overbearing government.
-
Was freeing the opressed the main reason for sending thousands of Americans to Europe in 1943?
What is the relevance of this question?
-
They are odviously not doing this the American way .
And what way would that be?
But if we interpose ourselves do we humiliate them ?
We didn't care about that before the war, so why would it be a consideration now? Anyway, for the record, I have not suggested we force the Iraqi government to do anything.
Are we just going to be a better despot than Saddam?
Us? What about the Iraqi government?
If all they have is genuine elections they can use the election process to fight any problem, includeing an overbearing government.
Can they? If their election process works anything like ours, I have serious doubts that they can.
-
This reminds me of similar actions taken by the "democratic" government of South Vietrnam before it collapsed.They also "cracked down" on dissidents and we saw basic freedoms melt away.
-
Was freeing the opressed the main reason for sending thousands of Americans to Europe in 1943?
What is the relevance of this question?
So it seems to me the whole freeing the Iraqis from tyranny has to have been at least a rationalization for sending troops to Iraq. And maybe that is all it was, but the idea of it as a goal was there, I think. A main goal? No.
-
Plane, motivations for entering W.W. II have no relevance, that I can see, to this discussion. The conflict in Iraq is not W.W. II. That ended back in the 1940s This year is 2006 by the Gregorian calendar. There are something like 60 years between now and then. Our leaders are entirely different people, and the war in Iraq is an entirely different conflict. If you want to talk about similarities of motivations, about the only similarity that might be drawn is that there are speculations both F.D.R. and G.W.B. wanted to find a way to draw America into a global conflict. So I think you don't really want to be bringing W.W. II into this discussion, unless your goal is to persuade me that JS is entirely correct.
-
Plane, motivations for entering W.W. II have no relevance, that I can see, to this discussion. The conflict in Iraq is not W.W. II. That ended back in the 1940s This year is 2006 by the Gregorian calendar. There are something like 60 years between now and then. Our leaders are entirely different people, and the war in Iraq is an entirely different conflict. If you want to talk about similarities of motivations, about the only similarity that might be drawn is that there are speculations both F.D.R. and G.W.B. wanted to find a way to draw America into a global conflict. So I think you don't really want to be bringing W.W. II into this discussion, unless your goal is to persuade me that JS is entirely correct.
People are still people , we have changed only a little since prehistory , we wear diffrent clothes and drive faster chairiots but what Socraties observed about People is still relivant nonetheless.
Is it your point that freeing Iraq from repression was a reason given to the masses by the eletes who really make the decisions? So the the" real " reasons were ulterior reasons known only to a few?
I do not have this paradgn down really.
In my estimation , the reason that is taken by the people is a real determiner , the people don't just vote every two years , they lend support or oppose the direction of government constantly , the resultant vector is an addition of millions of vectors with the leanings of the elete only able to turn the tide a little off of its chosen trajectory.
If the People beleived , wanted and supported the relief of the people of Iraq then this is a real reason .
If the people as a whole care some what less now than then for this reason , then this may be a rest in the momentum , or it may be a turning of the tide , either way when the great mass of us are moving the elete surf along on our waves .
-
People are still people , we have changed only a little since prehistory , we wear diffrent clothes and drive faster chairiots but what Socraties observed about People is still relivant nonetheless.
None of which changes the fact that the specific motivations for entry into World War II are not relevant to the discussion of motivations for the Iraq War. If the same people were making the decisions, and if the nature of the conflict was the same, you might have a valid point here. But different people are making the decisions, and the nature of the conflict is different.
Is it your point that freeing Iraq from repression was a reason given to the masses by the eletes who really make the decisions?
No. That is not my point. My point in this discussion is the same as it has been since my initial post. The notion that we are helping to establish a free Iraq is a false notion with no basis in reality.
So the the" real " reasons were ulterior reasons known only to a few?
I'm not saying that. It might in fact be the case, but I'm not saying it is, and whether we do or don't know is not my point. Whatever their motivations were or are, the romantic idea that we're fighting tyranny and establishing a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is simply not true. Whatever this conflict is about, it isn't about freedom no matter much we might wish it was.
I do not have this paradgn down really.
In my estimation , the reason that is taken by the people is a real determiner , the people don't just vote every two years , they lend support or oppose the direction of government constantly , the resultant vector is an addition of millions of vectors with the leanings of the elete only able to turn the tide a little off of its chosen trajectory.
If the People beleived , wanted and supported the relief of the people of Iraq then this is a real reason .
Um, no. If the people believed it, it might be a reason why they supported the war, but that hardly makes it a genuine reason or motivation as to why the leaders decided to go to war. Unless you expect me to believe that there was some sort of great outpouring of demand from the general populace that America go to war with Iraq. That is not the way events unfolded, as I recall.
If the people as a whole care some what less now than then for this reason , then this may be a rest in the momentum , or it may be a turning of the tide , either way when the great mass of us are moving the elete surf along on our waves .
That is a wonderfully romantic notion, Plane, but as romantic a fellow as I am, I don't buy it. The Bush administration had to build a case for war with Iraq. There was no demand from the people for war in Iraq before that. I hope to God that we never see the day when the general populace starts demanding the leaders take America to war against a country that has not attacked us. That would truly be a horrible day.
-
This reminds me of similar actions taken by the "democratic" government of South Vietrnam before it collapsed.They also "cracked down" on dissidents and we saw basic freedoms melt away.
As you'll recall, the United States played a rather large role in the non-democratic functions of South Vietnam. In fact, that was an era where the United States and the West (as well as the Soviet Union and the East) aided a large number of very nasty and brutal dictatorial regimes. At a basic level, one's tyrannical brutality was acceptable as long as it was done in the name of "our side."