BS: Good News in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 02:10 PM

From the second half of the sentence attributed to him: "I felt that [the President] ought to make the decision as to whether or not I stayed on."

He didn't just resign. He said, make an overt decision that you want me to stay. That gives him cover, which he now touts, and is essentially the opposite of an honorable resignation. (Perhaps this is a more common practice than I know.)

I've heard that the Japanese honor the "Captain of the Ship" doctrine to an extraordinary degree. A doctor once described to me an incident in which a neurosurgical patient was horribly disabled at an academic hospital. This led to the resignation of the Chairs of TWO departments, even though they clearly had no direct involvement in the error.

Rumsfeld could have done a great service to his country by resigning over the Abu Graib scandal, acknowledging that this was an intolerable error under his watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 01:52 PM

Heric: I think you may be a bit confused. Rumsfield submitted his resignation twice. The President refused to accept it in both instances. I can't imagine where you came up with "offering to be voluntarily fired."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:58 AM

"'I submitted my resignation to President Bush twice during that period and told him that - that I felt that he ought to make the decision as to whether or not I stayed on,' Mr. Rumsfeld said."
(New York Times)

I've never heard of this, offering to be voluntarily fired? Telling the president he has the right to fire him?? Resign or don't. This sounds as if he demanded that the President exonerate and support him, so he could have the cover of higher authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 08:31 PM

Yes, Nerd and Wolfgang, I was technically wrong on a number of points. Basically I should have explained myself better in the first place.

Let me try to explain what seems (to me) to be emerging.

Lets call it the culture of opposition.

Fed up with religious fanatics and secular greed, the people of all three countries are struggling to find a common identity. Rather than define themselves as Iraqi, Iranian or Afghani, many are opting to call themselves Persians (regardless of nationality or religion). This is happening in Vancouver.

Whether you and I agree or not, the people of those regions, will choose to define themselves. Once away from the war torn region and mixed in with people from all over the world, it seems the term "Persian" is relatively trouble free and creates unity with others from the region.

I don't mind at all being told I'm wrong. It gives me the opportunity to define and refine what I think is good news in Iraq.

Although you and I may not approve of a Muslim Theocracy, if the people really have their say, that is what will eventually emerge (just a guess).

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:45 PM

I want to point out another piece of really, REALLY good news in Iraq.

Iraqi prisoners are not being forced to watch old Jerry Lewis films in order to break down their resistance under questioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:30 PM

dianavan,

I believe Wolfgang meant that the error that you never acknowledged was the claim that Iraq had a Persian majority. Your more recent claim not to know why you lumped Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan together is odd, because it is obvious from reading the earlier posts why you did so: you thought they all had Persian majorities. I quote the first relevant post:

"The good news in Iraq is that the people of Iraq and Iran are re-claiming their common Persian identity."

In the second, you said:

"Yes, Amos, Iran is thought to be the center of Persian culture. Iraq and Afghanistan also have Persian majorities."

So there it was, the first time you put all those three countries together, for the purpose of stating that they all have Persian majorities.

Only they DON'T all have Persian majorities. While you seem to have tacitly accepted this, you never in fact acknowledged the error (you said you agreed with me as though you had always agreed, which is not quite the same). I was not personally offended by this, but it does come off as a rather defensive move and makes your subsequent questions about population look like an attempt to change the subject. I think that is what Wolfgang was responding to.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:59 AM

Wolfgang--

My hat is well and truly off to you. Not only are you logical, usually unflappable, and thorough in research (deutsche Grundlichkeit, nicht wahr?) but you are unfettered by ideological blinders--and beating a fair number of the English speakers around here at their own game.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:54 AM

However, LH--accuracy does count.

In that vein--

Larry K--

As Wolfgang has pointed out, the first election in West Germany was 4 years, not 10 years, after the end of World War II. I'm sorry I didn't catch you on that. I should have known that virtually everything you say is made out of whole cloth.

So now you have just about a perfect record of misinformation on questions about Germany (all except 1932, where you couldn't even recognize you agreed with me.)

I'm sure Wolfgang could have also called you on your imaginary pro-Nazi groups causing "a great amount of violence" after the end of the war. Why don't you read history instead of historical fiction? You certainly can stand proudly in the anti-intellectual tradition of your heroes, Mr. Reagan and G W Bush.

That plate of crow is just waiting for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:56 AM

"It's not always a matter of being right or wrong."

Well said, Dianavan. That ought to be mounted in letters of gold at the entrance of every academic institution and parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:59 PM

Wolfgang, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to jump in to insist that I acknowledge my error because Nerd and I do not actually have a quarrel.

I'm not sure why I lumped Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran together rather than Syria, Jordan and Iraq except that I was trying to determine ethnic and religious majorities in a given region. As Nerd pointed out, religion and ethnicity cross over and so, depending on how the countries are grouped, you can arrive at an ethnic majority or a religious majority but not both at the same time or in the same region.

Its not always a matter of being right or wrong. Its more often a matter of asking for feedback that is informative.

Your comments were neither informative or enlightening. Don't boor me with your scolding or your "quicker and better" way.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:26 AM

Dianavan, I meant your quarrel with Nerd.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:58 AM

Wolfgang - Can you please be more specific?

I don't mind admitting an error but I'm not sure which error you are referring to.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Boab
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:42 AM

Ah! Before I am accused of plagiarism, I have just now read on another thread "The Vote was a SUCCESS" , the piece of reportage I mention above. Worth a read. "Plus ca change, plus le meme chose"?

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:42 AM

I'm not suggesting that the people fighting the Americans and British in Iraq are "goodies", Wolfgang. Not at all. I am suggesting that, like the people who went to Spain in the late 30's, they are fighting in a struggle which has significance far beyond the borders of Iraq, and that is why they are willing to go there.

Everone fights for freedom...in their own mind. I mean, they fight for the freedom to do things they way they like things to be done. I'm sure the forces fighting the American occupation are just as much imagining themselves to be fighting in defence of freedom as are the young American soldiers they are fighting against.

That's the usual story.

Given the fact that I consider this to have been an illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq, I tend to sympathize somewhat with people who fight against the occupation. That doesn't mean I approve of their violent methods. I Don't.

The most effective method of defeating the Americans in Iraq would be to do what Gandhi did...to provoke massive civil disobedience in a completely non-violent way by millions and millions of people...and to keep doing so until the Americans finally got discouraged (not to mention embarrassed) and left. It could be done, but it would require a much more aware leadership on the part of the resistance. It would require millions of Iraqis with the courage and wisdom to BE nonviolent in resistance, and the inspired leaders to lead them. There are not many Gandhis in this world. There are plenty of angry fools ready to grab a gun, a mortar, or a bomb, and go out and kill someone.

That is the tragedy of it all. Angry fools against other angry fools, and ordinary people caught in the crossfire.

Freedom is not freedom when it is forced on people. It's not freedom when a few are hugely rich, and many are poor.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Boab
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:25 AM

The writer of the report on the "democratic" Vietnam election mentioed above was a reporter called Peter Grose, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Boab
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:22 AM

Doug R.----As is the case with all the world---from president to the humblest pundit, I cannot predict the " real result" of the recent election. I can only hope, with many another, that the real result will be all on the side of the Iraqi people. Rest assured , that is NOT the real result envisioned by the predators who lied [not a typo!] the world into the general slaughter now ongoing. On another thread, I have referred to a New York Times press report of the election in Vietnam Sept 4th 1967. Don't let your intelligent thought be reined into a rut by propaganda---find it, read it, and substitute "Iraq" for Vietnam. It WILL make you think-----

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 12:38 PM

Detail: The first elections in Germany were four years after the war, not ten.

Little Hawk: the comparison of foreign fighters against Franco to foreign fighters in Iraq is ludicrous. I mean, really ludicrous: (1) Spain had a freely elected government. (2) The government was still in power in parts of Spain and invited foreign help. (3) The foreign fighters fought openly together with the troops of the government. (4) The foreign fighters did not fight by way of intimidating Spanish civilians.

The foreign fighters in Iraq have not the main intention to help the Iraqi people (both factions), they have their own agenda. They are killing even more Iraqi than they are killing allied troops. They use a lot of money for their actions. They pay Iraqis desperate for money for some of their actions. They probably more than once (but only one of the victims so far has survived) have staged 'suicide' attacks which in reality were murders. One survivor told how someone has offered him big money for a 'transport' and didn't know that his 'suicide' had been already planned by remote control triggering of the van bomb.

I have a lot of bad things to say about the Americans being in Iraq at all and how some of them behave, but if the opposing forces are painted as freedom fighters and the goodies here, it makes me furious.

Dianavan, I know you don't like to acknowledge an error, but sometimes a three-word sentence like 'I stand corrected' or 'I was wrong' is the quicker and better way.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 12:38 AM

That is the standard procedure when a country commits blatant aggression, and some of its own people protest, Amos. They are accused of hating their own country by dupes who support the aggression! Apparently in this case to love humanity or to love honesty or to love truth or to love justice...is to hate America!

Go figure.

I thank God that Larry K does not command the Gestapo or it's modern-day equivalent in the USA or I'm afraid that you, Amos, and a lot of other catters would soon disappear, and not be seen again...

Me in Canada, I'd still be safe for a bit. Bush hasn't invaded Canada yet and my country did not support this war. Nor did most of the rest of the World. In fact, virtually NO population outside the USA and Israel supported this war, although Mr Blair did, of course...against the will of his own party and his own people. I call that a hijacked government...kind of like the little Austrian's, back in 1933.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 12:22 AM

"...we won't know the RESULTS of the successful election in Iraq for days, maybe weeks."

dougR, a query. since we won't know the results for some time, and the election observers were not on site but hiding out in amman, jordan, how do we know the percentage of turnout within hours and are broadcasting our great numbers thruout the world? any guesses?

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:09 PM

LarryK:

I challenge you to identify a single person on this person who hates America. If you cannot do so, then I request that you cease from these scurrilous and reactionary condemnations of unspecified, generalized elements of this forum as "Haters of America", which you can surely see is highly controversial and ill-defined.

Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:55 PM

DougR - I'm happy to know (according to your last post) that you are a reasonable man.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 08:50 PM

Larry K--

I suppose that as a Bushite you can't be expected to read carefully. But this time you have exceeded even your own amazingly high standard for misreading a post. I'll certainly have to admit, however, that you are indeed a worthy disciple of the Great Miscommunicator (Mr. Reagan), whom you delight in quoting.

Since you won't be bothered to read carefully, I will quote from my own post of 28 Jan 05 11:15 PM: "The election of 1932 certainly was NOT (emphasis added now) a sterling example of democracy". Is that clear enough for you? Why did you waste so many words (31 Jan 05 10:24 AM) coming to the same conclusion? Don't you realize you agree with me?

Now you also state in that post: "During that time" (1945-55) "there was a great amount of violence from terrorists and pro-nazi (sic) supporters". A great amount of violence from pro-Nazi supporters? Really? Please enlighten us. I imagine Wolfgang or any of our other German contributors could straighten you out on this, but I will just ask you for proof, please,----and not from Fox News or Mr. Limbaugh this time----nor from your own fertile imagination. With sources, specific incidents, and dates, of course----and all after VE Day and in what became West Germany.

If you cannot come up with proof, I have prepared a wonderful plate of steaming crow for you. Enjoy!

Better still, why don't you go back to work and stop wasting your employer's time.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:18 PM

Boab: in all fairness, we won't know the RESULTS of the successful election in Iraq for days, maybe weeks. I'm sure, though, you would be delighted to share with us what the REAL results will be. Right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:24 AM

Ron- In the words of the Great Ronald Reagan- "there you go again" rewriting history.   My point was that after WWII ended, it took 10 years before Germany had its first election. During that time there was a great amount of violence from terrorists and pro nazi supporters. Iraq had its first election much sooner.   

Of course Germany had elections prior to Hitler.   That was not my point at all.   My point was that it took 10 years after the war ended and Hitler was removed to be ready for an election. It only took 1 year after the war ended and Sadamm was removed for Iraq to have a free election.    What part of that don't you understand.

Since you bring up pre Hitler elections- lets look at the facts. Hitler was never democratically elected.   He lost the 1932 election in a 4 way race.   Since the leading vote getter only got 49% of the vote, they had to have a run-off.   Hitler LOST THE RUNNOFF!   If memory serves, Hitler got less than 40% of the vote in both elections.

However, in one of the most stupid moves in the history of mankind, Chamberlain and other pushed Germany to appoint Hitler as the number two man because they thought they could control him better.   Hitler than gained power through violence and had the chancellor killed making Hitler the Chancellor.   He than threw away the German constitution.   

I would not call Hitlers rise to power a democratic process.   sorry if the truth offends you.   The Iraq election was a huge victory for democracy and freedom.   (still a lot of work to do and many hurdles and pitfalls- it ain't over yet)   The Iraq election was also a huge defeat for Haters of America on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:55 AM

And then it was LINKS TO AL QUEDA which were false. And ALUMINUM TUBES to make NUCLEAR bombs that make big MUSHROOM CLOUDS and that could attack us in 45 MINUTES which was wrong...Then it was on to SADAAM IS I BADMAN and had to be removed which they did but Bush still wouldn't leave after that was accomplished? Wahts with that, Dougie, et al??? Hey, if having a BADMAN in conrol of yer danged country is grounds to be invaded I can provide you all with a long list of countries, the US included, that need a good whacking!!!...

But now we're down the list of excuses and the Bush folks, rather than say, "Hey, we mighta messed up..." huddled together and came up with DEMOCRATIZATION??? Well, how long will the US military have to stay in Iraq for that to happen? Couple hundred years? Heck, the US is supposed to have a democracy but it still doesn't and we've been at it for over 200 years...

And don't even talk about LIBERTY or FREEDOM. Those sound good but they are so far away from what the Itaqis have now that those terms are just good PR propaganda for Joe 12-Pack and a bad joke to everyone else...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Boab
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:51 AM

I did expect the Iraqi elections to be hailed as "a great success" no matter what. But "stupendous"?? That sure out-bushes Bush!! I'm sure DOUG R doesn't really believe that the ---completely predictable --election result is going to mean the end of resistance to the occupation. That will continue, and more innocents and young men in uniform will be maimed and killed. And like many another non-Iraqi I will never be lulled by oft-repeated , and oft-modified crap propaganda as to the driving reason for "democratisation " of Iraq. The given reason ---from both Bush and Blair and their cronies---for the implementation of slaughter in Iraq was "Weapons of Mass Destruction". In other words , as most of the world guessed then, and all the world knows now, our people were deceived by vile lies, and by vile liars; they haven't changed, not one little bit!

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:51 AM

Yes, that's right. There was a big crowd of western journalists at the statue, a little crowd of prepped Iraqis, and a bunch of American soldiers...at the end of this huge, empty square. It was a very poorly attended event in terms of Iraqis. I've seen the wide angle shots from a distance, showing the whole square, with this little bunch of people down at the end around the statue, as it is being pulled down.

The American news only showed closeups of the few people at the statue, which did not reveal that the square was mostly empty.

You didn't find too many Germans joining as the Russians put the red flag atop the ruins of the Reichstag in '45 either. Nor did you find many French crowds cheering the Germans who marched in formation through the Arc de Triumph in 1940.

When a country has been invaded and conquered, it's people mostly tend to stay off the streets for a bit, avoid the conquering army, and play it safe.

I did see a lot of looters, though, who were allowed to pillage places like the National Museum of priceless antiquities while American forces stood by and did nothing. Most of those antiquities are probably now in the hands of rich collectors in the USA and Europe...for a prearranged price. How convenient.

Iraq is a nation that has been starved for a decade, bombed for a decade, then invaded illegally for no good reason whatsoever, and then looted. And guess who by? The USA and the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:20 AM

dougR, you probably still believe that the saddam statue was pulled down by a huge crowd of iraqi patriots cuz you saw it on TV. (hint:its been proven that that event was staged by american forces for the brain dead TV viewers who believe everything they're told by the talking (ranting) heads)

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:04 PM

My good wishes to all Iraqis who voted in an honest hope for change...I hope that their faith is rewarded.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 03:13 PM

Oh Great GUEST from the GREAT NW: More good news from Iraq! I realize you don't watch TV, but perhaps you turn on a radio from time to time. The elections were a stupendous success and the Iraqis who voted are dancing in the streets. It's kind of heartwarming to see the goings on, but since you don't watch TV ...ooh well.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 08:45 PM

Well, Doug, the mainstream media, as you call them, are as uninterested in reporting good news about anything else as they are about reporting good news in Iraq. That's the fact of the matter. Bad news attracts more attention. :-) More attention means more viewers. More viewers means happier sponsors. Happier sponsors means more revenue for the media.

The reason Fox reports the news you want to hear is because Fox is an unofficial advocate for a particular special interest group...one that happens to back a viewpoint you have decided is your viewpoint. That makes Fox a bit unusual in the World...but I'm sure they are busy hunting out bad news too....just not bad news that makes their chosen political stance look like a crock of...um...horse puckey. :-) They must be careful to select bad news that makes their opponents' stance look that way instead.

You know how it is when you are trying to make a good buck AND push a partisan agenda at the same time, right? It's tricky.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 08:30 PM

I see what you're getting at, dianavan. The reason I said it made no sense is that the fact that there are more Catholics or Protestants in the aggregated countries of France, Spain and Britain wouldn't really mean very much; it's an arbitrary grouping of countries. That's how I feel about grouping Iraq with Iran and Afghanistan on the basis of ethnicity. Why not Iraq, Jordan, Syria? In the latter case you'd have about 90% Arabs and the rest Iraqi Kurds--obviously an ethnic continuum. But you're right, it's not theoretically impossible to answer your question.

One thing to remember is that the Persians did their share of invading too, historically speaking.    They did at one time occupy Iraq by invasion--but it was long ago! No one's innocent in deep historical time...

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 07:43 PM

And those C's just haven't cut it in Bush's life in that every business venture he has been part of he has over and over shown that the best way to make a small fortune is to start out with a much larger one...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 07:06 PM

OMFofNW: You get up on the wrong side of the bed or something? Wow, you sure get a burr under your saddle easily.

It is difficult to know of the good things the Coalition is doing in Iraq BECAUSE the mainstream press does not report it! They are only intererested in reporting the bad things not the new! Surely you know that. Bobert is correct, however, only the Fox News has reported on the good things that have happened and that's where I heard it. There was a whole program devoted to it recently, but I cannot direct you to the date or time it played. Since you seem like a real nice fellow/lady, and seem to really want to know, I'll try to find out.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 07:06 PM

He was a C student in any case, skippuh.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: kendall
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 06:52 PM

How many unpopular puppet governments have we set up over the years? And how many of them were taken out by the MAJORITY of the natives? If you think Iraq will be different, tell me how.

If I had my way, no person could run for president unless he/she held a degree in history. So far, only one president had a degree in history, Woodrow Wilson.

Mr. Bush has a degree in accounting or business or some other useless piece of paper (as far as being president goes)

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 06:44 PM

Nerd - I do not see that the question makes no sense. It would be possible to answer the question given in your example: "if you put France, Spain and Britain together, who is the majority? Catholics or Protestants?"

My question is not impossible and you did a very good job answering it.

You said, "there are far more Arabs in the region than Persians, and far more Sunnis than Shiites."

That is why I said and qualified it by saying an oversimplification would be: Arabs = Sunnis and Persians = Shiites

I know that we would have to go too far back in history to sort this out but basically, Persia was doing just fine before the Arabs and now the U.S., invaded.

I think the Arabs and the U.S. should fight their battles elsewhere. Perhaps, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq could then find common ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 06:05 PM

dianavan,

as you often do, you are throwing out odd questions whose answers are irrelevant.

The Arabs are an 80% majority in Iraq. In your third post you wrote:

"Iraq and Afghanistan also have Persian majorities."

Again, this is wrong. Afghanistan and Iran have a Persian majority, Iraq an Arab majority. There is no "common Persian identity" to be found between Iraq and Iran. Indeed, less than one percent of Iraq's population is Persian

Now you ask: "If you put Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran together, who is the majority? Arab or Persian? Sunni or Shiite?"

you might as well ask "if you put France, Spain and Britain together, who is the majority? Latinate or Germanic peoples? Catholics or Protestants?"

The answer is, "the question makes no sense."

Afghanis are mostly Persian Sunnis. Iraqis are mostly Arab Shiites. Iranians are mostly Persian Shiites. The very poor population estimates for Afghanistan make it impossible to determine who would have more people if the populations were combined. Quite possibly, there would be more Persians, but more Sunnis because of the Persian Sunnis of Afghanistan and the Sunni ethnic minorities in each country.

However, if you did not arbitrarily pick those three countries, there are far more Arabs in the region than Persians, and far more Sunnis than Shiites. It is much more likely that Iraqis will decide to reclaim their common Arab identity with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatr and the UAE than a nonexistent Persian identity with Iran.

Many Iraqi Shiites DO feel a sense of common identity with Iranian Shiites. But they are only 60 percent of the Iraqi population, so they would have to do so universally in order to make political common cause with Iran. Furthermore, the Shiite Arabs of Iraq have neither ethnicity nor religion in common with the Sunni Persians of Afghanistan. So the international wave of fellow-feeling you envision would have several important ethnic and religious boundaries to cross. It would have to unite aome Arabs with some Persians on the basis of Shiite religion, some Shiites with some Sunnis on the basis of Persian ethnicity, and some Shiite Arabs with some Sunni Persians on the basis of their common friends, the Shiite Persians. This is not usually the way common identity is constituted.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 03:34 PM

Nerd - I did read your post.

For those of us who are still trying to figure this out, I agree with you when you say: "Just so, most Iranian Shiites are Persian and most Iraqi Shiites are Arabic."

If you put it that way, maybe you can answer this question. If you put Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran together, who is the majority? Arab or Persian? Sunni or Shiite? Thanks for the clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 02:41 PM

Iraqis hopeful despite threat of bloodshed

'Good Morning, Orange City' radio airs a marketplace of ideas

By Arwa Damon
CNN
Saturday, January 29, 2005 Posted: 11:12 AM EST (1612 GMT)



BAQUBA, Iraq (CNN) -- "Welcome all listeners, welcome to a new episode of 'Good Morning, Orange City.' Welcome, we are waiting for your calls, our numbers are 530898 and 530 ..." Before radio talk show host Rafed Mahmud can finish his sentence, the phone at Diyala TV and Radio is ringing.

The show, called "Good Morning, Orange City" because of the region's famous citrus and palm groves, is quite the buzz in Diyala province, which is northeast of Baghdad, and has created a stir even in the capital, Mahmud said.

Iraqis can call in and lodge complaints, discuss daily issues, or merely express themselves.

"When the show first launched, it was very bizarre for citizens and for the government officials. This freedom has never been seen. As each episode went by I noticed that citizens were opening up and getting their issues off their chest," Mahmud said.

"The government officials were not expecting the citizens to be this open and really hold them [the officials] accountable. The government officials themselves often phone back to react to the complaints. We have really seen results."

The results came at a high price for the station established in September 2003.

In March of last year, gunmen attacked a bus carrying employees of the station, killing three employees and wounding another eight. About a week ago, Mahmud's 4-month-old daughter was killed in a car crash.

Mahmud was moving his family from Baquba after receiving death threats, when he noticed a vehicle tailing him. While trying to outmaneuver the vehicle, his car flipped, killing his daughter and injuring his wife and 6-year-old son.

Friday's guest at the station was Amer Latif, provincial director of the Independent Electoral Commission.

Amid what Mahmud said are the usual complaints about power outages, gas shortages, allegations of corruption by the local and national governments, and the security situation, Friday's callers also addressed the elections.

A caller from Moqtadiye said angrily, "All the people are all asking -- Who is going to guarantee our security when we are going to the polls?"

Amer said the electoral commission has arranged with Iraqi security forces and the coalition forces to ensure voter security.

"On the day of elections, all will be secure and Iraqis will be able to vote," he said.

Another caller complained about the black market for benzene, a common fuel. He said every station has different prices and that he thinks something fishy is going on.

Regarding the elections, he asked, "Up till now we still don't know how to vote or who is on the lists. How will we get to the polls? Can we go or will they come and get us?"

Amer explained the voting process and said there will be TV and radio broadcasts, leaflet distribution, and banners that will direct voters to the polls.

Mahmud said most of his callers have two concerns about elections.

"They are worried about security. And they also ask how can they vote when they don't even have basic services," he said.

Optimism under pressure

Although he compares the security in Diyala province with that in Falluja and Ramadi, Mahmud said that he believes that most of the province will go to the polls come election day, despite the insurgent campaign to deter them.

"There is insurgent propaganda being put out, and this is where the role of the citizen comes in and their love for Iraq," he said.

"I think that this is what is going to push the Iraqi to the vote. There are even some old women who say, 'We will go vote, even if we die in the voting stations.' This sentiment is what will allow us to have successful elections."

There are 170 polling sites in Diyala province, 40 of which are in Baquba. Many have been attacked despite efforts to keep the locations secret, but military officials in Baquba say there has been no sustained effort to take over the sites. Most of the attacks have consisted of a few bursts of small arms fire or a mortar round.

"They [the insurgents] won't be able to overrun our polling sites. The issue is to make sure that the people are not so intimidated to stay home," said Col. Dana Pittard, commander of the 3rd Brigade of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division.

"That's a tough one. All it takes is a guy shooting a couple rounds and people may decide to stay home."

Security out in force

The Iraqi police are securing most of the sites, with Iraqi army units and coalition forces a radio call away.

Brig. Gen. Tahsin Tawfia Jasim, director of the Joint Coordination Center, said 1,590 policemen and 509 police officers are securing polling sites throughout the province.

At one site, a primary school in central Baquba, Iraqi police said they came under machine gun fire the previous night but they repelled the attackers.

"There have been several attacks in this neighborhood. The police station down the road from here has been taken over several times by insurgents," said Capt. John Bushman.

But officials say that security has improved dramatically since the summer, when the attacks were more intense and sophisticated.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 01:28 PM

dianavan,

you obviously didn't read what I wrote. Just because the Iraqis are Shiites does not mean they are Persians, any more than all Catholics are Romans. Iraqi Arabs were converted by Persians to Shia but remained Arabs for all that.

It is wrong to say that Sunni islam is an "Arab faction." The Kurds are also Sunni, but not Arabs. Ethnicity and religion are not the same thing. An Irishman is Irish and a Frenchman is French, even if they are both Catholic. Just so, most Iranian Shiites are Persian and most Iraqi Shiites are Arabic.

Please read this, and my previous posts on the matter, before responding to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 12:45 PM

Yo, NW,

Heck, if ya' want know where Dougie gets his story Tales, jus' tune in the Fox Almost-News-Well-It-Could-Be-News-Couldn't-It station. Yep it used to be that revisionits worked "after the fact" but with Fox, heck they're revising it evn before it happens...

Yup, they have been preparing for weeks, just as all the rest of the Bushites, to declare the phony elections in Iraq a success. Won't let no fact get in their way, fir sure...

So when you hear Dougie pronouncments, think Fox entertainment...

Now don't get me wrong here, NW, I like Dougie. I sho nuff do but I don't read him to get any actual facts but for updates on what the Bush PR team is unloading on the public. And Doug is right there with the latest spin. No sloucher here...

Plus, he don't ever talk dirty like Martin. Now don't get me wrong about Martin, either, 'cause I like Martin purdy good too...

Ahhhhh, is it true that there is only *one* trained outsider watchin' over this election? And that this person is holed up in the Green Zone? Hmmmmmm? Diebold won't have to work too hard on this one...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 12:32 PM

That goes without saying. War is a completely awful situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 12:27 PM

and sad for the Iraqi citizens who get beheaded by knife by ex-pat Jordanian and Saudi partygoers who are there to help them out.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 11:57 AM

Mary Garvey - Does one "take glee" in seeing an invader thrown back? Does one "take glee" in seeing a German soldier garrotted in an alleyway by a French Resistance fighter in WWII? I hope not. But one may feel a certain grim satisfaction in seeing invaders thwarted, and occupying aggressors driven out of a country. I certainly took a grim satisfaction in seeing the Vietnamese finally retake their country in the mid-70's, after having had to fight the French, the Japanese, the French again (!), and finally the Americans...for 40 years!!!! Just to get their country free of foreign domination and attain national self-rule. I note that they have not turned into horned monsters since...

I do not take glee at violent death, but I oppose unprovoked invasion and occupation of a country under false pretences, and I regard any reversal that the occupying forces suffer the same way I would regard reversals suffered by the Nazis in occupied France. I regard it as a step in the right direction, but I do not regard it with glee. I feel sad for the innocent people who suffer on both sides.

The young Americans who are getting killed in Iraq have no real idea why they are there, and they are dying on behalf of a pack of lies. I feek sorry for both them and their families.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 07:02 AM

My point is that in (what became) West Germany in 1945 (not East Germany), there were no strong anti-democratic or anti-Western forces. (Tell me that's true in Iraq.)   I'm aware there were French, British and US zones---by the way, anybody have information on German attitudes 1945-1955 toward British and French popular culture?   I would in all seriousness be very interested (if this be thread creep, make the most of it).

At any rate, drawing a parallel between Iraq and West Germany is absurd.

Also, has anybody noticed that the same crowd that railed against Clinton and ridiculed his administation in the 2000 campaign for the naivete of "nation-building",-- as well as pillorying Carter in the 1970's for making human rights a foreign policy issue---is engaged in--guess what-- in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you say "flip-flop"?

As to the outcome of the Iraq elections--most likely is an eventual break-up of Iraq. Perhaps for Bushites this qualifies as "good news".

The Kurds want their own state, or as much autonomy from Iraq as possible. The Sunnis fear retribution for Saddam's crimes and oppression of the Shi' ites. The Shi'ites are happy with majority rule. ( I wonder why). It hinges to a large extent now on how serious al-Sistani is on maintaining his "quietist"--that is to say--no interference in politics--strain of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 04:07 AM

Nerd - The Arab faction of Islam is called Sunni and the Iranian faction is called Shiite.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 02:38 AM

"Because you seem to want bad news to happen..."

this is an absolutely false statement and an uninformed opinion that shows more of that lack of critical thinking skill i was talking about with dougR.

"...and perhaps, hopefully not, take glee in it. It is sick."

i take offense at this statement. i feel no glee AT ALL about our world situation and wish nothing but a fair and good resolution to this FOR ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED INCLUDING THE IRAQIS. my attitude is not sick, you know nothing about me and if this is what you read into my postings...well, i'm going to hold my tongue on what i think of your attitude because then i'd sound like YOU!

"This isn't being presented with the proper respect due to a situation in which people are and will be getting killed. mg"

this i just find baffling. this situation should be brought to a swift close and people should not be getting killed because of one man's (administrations) hubris, greed, and ignorance. i have no idea what you would consider respectful in this instance. not talking? being quiet while this horror goes on in my and your name? you lost me here.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 02:23 AM

"Oh Friendly Guest from the N.W.: I didn't realize that you were depending upon me to point out the good things that are happening in Iraq."

i wasn't. i just hoped that since you had originally told me there was plenty i wasn't hearing about you could direct me to some sources rather than your hearsay pronouncements.

"It's not surprising that you are not aware of them, because you probably only watch the "popular" networks and CNN for your news."

i don't watch TV news unless i'm stuck in a hotel room. i read newspapers, newsmagazines, and look at various world and domestic news sources on the internet. where do you get all this "good news" that you say i'm unaware of?

"Schools have been rebuilt, the entire infrastructure (admittedly that was destroyed by the war) is being replaced and improved, women have rights they haven't had in decades, etc. etc."

i'm still waiting for one single link or source to back up any of your hearsay. don't you have ANY? can you only spout hearsay and call it fact? and even have the nerve to add "etc., etc." as if EVERYONE knows all this stuff that, at the same time, you say is not reported? some critical thinking skills needed here.

"I will not assume the reponsibility for ferreting out the positive news for you, Oh Mighty friend from the Great N.W.. Just open your eyes."

i don't doubt that you shirk responsibility. i'm guessing you also oppose any tax hikes to pay for our troops' supplies. or conservation of energy to mitigate the need to intervene in middle eastern countries. or a draft to spread the pain of loved ones' deaths around to all sectors of society rather than the poor and minority population. no, i don't doubt your unwillingness to assume any responsibility. not even enough to act like you care about reasoned discourse enough to provide sources for your hearsay. by the way, my eyes are open but they don't see the same mirage you're viewing.

"The best positive sign is the fact that within two days the Iraqi people will take the first step in taking control of their own country. That ain't too shabby my friend."

once again, a well publicized news event cited that does not address IN ANY WAY my original inquiry for the underreported good news that you yourself brought up (as quoted in my earlier posts). nor do you provide one single piece of evidence to support any of your hearsay, and then try to turn it back on me as if i should be ferrting out proof for your baseless claims. and then finish up with a classic bushite slogan "within two days the Iraqi people will take the first step in taking control of their own country" which also has very little basis in fact if you've followed the torturous path of this cynical, illegal and morally corrupt "pre-emptive" war.

impressive. no facts, no reasoning, much parroting of the talking points, stereotyping, and sloganeering. and not a bit of evidence of critical thinking. i knew i could count on you!

Subject: RE: BS: Good News in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 01:21 AM

Oh Friendly Guest from the N.W.: I didn't realize that you were depending upon me to point out the good things that are happening in Iraq. It's not surprising that you are not aware of them, because you probably only watch the "popular" networks and CNN for your news. Schools have been rebuilt, the entire infrastructure (admittedly that was destroyed by the war) is being replaced and improved, women have rights they haven't had in decades, etc. etc.

I will not assume the reponsibility for ferreting out the positive news for you, Oh Mighty friend from the Great N. W.. Just open your eyes.

The best positive sign is the fact that within two days the Iraqi people will take the first step in taking control of their own country. That ain't too shabby my friend.

DougR