THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

How can you say the things he write about aren't happening? You don't f*cking know that's true at all, are you IN Iraq? No. You just don't want to believe anything that's different from what you currently believe. Not surprising, really.

What you have described /= propaganda, which is gov't-sponsored news. 'Having an opinion' is what you meant to say.

Unless you can come up with actual arguments as to why he's full of shite, other than the fact that you disagree with the things he's said, then you are not qualified to make that decision.

Sure, you can believe he's full of shite all you want to; just don't go around talking about it as if you know what the hell you are talking about unless you can prove it. Confuses the newbies.

Cycloptichorn

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts. A similar manipulation of information is well known, e.g., in advertising, but normally it is not called propaganda in the latter context. The word propaganda carries a strong negative connotation that advertising does not.

How can you say the things he write about aren't happening? You don't f*cking know that's true at all, are you IN Iraq?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure, you can believe he's full of shite all you want to; just don't go around talking about it as if you know what the hell you are talking about unless you can prove it. Confuses the newbies.

Attention newbies. If you want to look like a hypocritical, idiotic, hyper partisan fool, follow this example of making up rules for others.

According to your rules, Cyclops, you and Saed now have the obligation to provide PROOF that Chemical Weapons were used in Fallujah... or the shut the hell up. Sure won't miss hearing all that idiotic crap you can't PROVE.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How can you say the things he write about aren't happening? You don't f*cking know that's true at all, are you IN Iraq? No. You just don't want to believe anything that's different from what you currently believe. Not surprising, really.

What you have described /= propaganda, which is gov't-sponsored news. 'Having an opinion' is what you meant to say.

Unless you can come up with actual arguments as to why he's full of shite, other than the fact that you disagree with the things he's said, then you are not qualified to make that decision.

Sure, you can believe he's full of shite all you want to; just don't go around talking about it as if you know what the hell you are talking about unless you can prove it. Confuses the newbies.

Cycloptichorn

Wikipedia has an indepth article defining propaganda and overviewing the history and examples of it. Their preface provides a clear definition:

Quote:

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts. A similar manipulation of information is well known, e.g., in advertising, but normally it is not called propaganda in the latter context. The word propaganda carries a strong negative connotation that advertising does not.

I actually meant to say propaganda, which is why I wrote it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How can you say the things he write about aren't happening? You don't f*cking know that's true at all, are you IN Iraq?

How many letters from GI's in Iraq get poo-pooed on this site because they seem too happy? How much "good news" have I posted from sources in Iraq that gets ridiculed and called "lies"?

I do not need to have any actual arguements as to why he is full of it, I only need to read what he writes. It's completely one-sided, elitist BS from someone on the internet. The writing is on the wall so to speak, all you have to do is read it.

:: Friday, May 30, 2003 ::

I really need to get something out of my system.
I got an email. After throwing everything and the kitchen sink at me they ask:

"How are your parents doing?
Ah yes, your parents. Salam, people are wondering."

Actually they are doing very well, thank you. My father was invited to an informal dinner attended by Garner the second week he was in Baghdad; he also met some of Bodine's aides and has met some of Bremer's aides a couple of times too. Not to mention many of your top military people south of Baghdad.
Seriously, not joking there.

Let me make a suggestion. Do not assume, not even for a second, that because you read the blog you know who I am or who my parents are. And you are definitely not entitled to be disrespectful. Not everything that goes on in this house ends up on the blog, so please go play Agatha Christy somewhere else.
My mother, a sociologist who was very happy in pursuing her career at the ministry of education decided to give up that career when she had to choose between becoming Ba'ath party member and quitting her job, she became a housewife. My father, a very well accomplished economist made the same decision and decided to become a farmer instead.
You are being disrespectful to the people who have put the first copy of George Orwell's 1984 in my hands, a heavy read for a 14 year old with bad English. But that banned book started a process and gave me the impulse to look at the world I live in a different way.
go fling the rubbish at someone else.

Have I told you that my father agreed to act as the mediator in the surrendering process between a number of Iraqi government officials and the American administration here? He is a man with sound moral judgment and people listen to his advice. People at the American administration and many of the new political parties had asked him for consultation.
Did I tell you about the time when one of Bremer's aides asked him what the difference between a tribal sheikh and a mosque sheikh is? They send them thousands of miles to govern us here and then ask such questions.
Did I tell you about his unending optimism in what the Americans can achieve here if they were given time? He is so much less of a skeptic than I am, we had our shouty arguments a number of times since the appearance of the Americans on our theatre of events.
You see, there is a lot that I have not told you about, and I don't see an obligation to do so. You all hide behind your blog names and keep certain bits of your life private.
I think the things that were said in the email above and on other sites were out of line.
There is more

"It seems your writing is dedicated to proving two points, first, minimizing the American contribution to removing Saddam and then, proving what terrible things the US did to get rid of Saddam, so as to paint a picture that it wasn't worth it."

As to the first. There is no way to "minimize" the contribution of the USA in removing saddam. The USA waged a friggin' war, how could you "minimize" a war. I have said this before: if it weren't for the intervention of the US, Iraq would have seen saddam followed by his sons until the end of time. But excuse me if I didn't go out and throw flowers at the incoming missiles. As for the second point, I don't think anyone has the right to throw cluster bombs in civilian areas and then refuse to clean up the mess afterwards.
Anyway.
I don't really understand why among the 26 million Iraqis I have to explain everything clearly, are you watching the news? can't you see the spectrum of reactions people have to the American presence in Iraq?.
I was at an ORHA press conference the other day (got in with someone who had a press pass) the guy up there on the podium said in an answer to a question, that most probably the people who have had good encounters with the coalition forces were saying things are getting better and those who have had bad things happening to them were saying things are getting worse.
It is still too early to make any judgments, I don't feel that I have an obligation say all is rosy and well.
Iraq is not the black hole it used to be and there are a bazillion journalists here doing better than I can ever do, they have a press ID and they know how to deal with stuff.
As to the question "why are you not documenting saddam's crimes?" Don't you see that this is not the sort of thing that should be discussed lightly in a blog like this one. And what's with "documenting", me tiny helpless salam documenting things that were going on for 30 years? Sorry to blow your bubble, but all I can do is tell you what is going on in the streets and if you think journalists are doing a better job of that then maybe you should go read them. One day, like in Afghanistan, those journalists will get bored and go write about Syria or Iran; Iraq will be off your media radar. Out of sight, out of mind. Lucky you, you have that option. I have to live it.

Attack the country, destroy the public sector to make it a part of the global capitalist village, destroy the national army to keep other US friends in the region safe, remove the national political leaders and put puppets (i.e. karazay, allawi, abu mazin, etc.). Whether we liked the Iraqi national political leaders or not, they were the legal leaders of the country. And even if we didn't like them and believed that we should remove them by an illegal foreign invasion, destroying the civic divisions of the government is not linked to removing them at all. It was possible to remove the political leaders without destroying the civil ministries with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis working in them. These hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were the legal national civil government of Iraq.

Attacking a country and removing its political leaders is illegal and invalid in all the international laws and conventions. Attacking a country and destroying every functioning institute and killing thousands upon thousands of people is a historical genocide that people will never forget. There are differences between the thousands of civilians killed and displaced in Fallujah (and other Iraqi cities) and the thousands killed in Auschwitz, but there are many similarities too.

I am one of the people affected by the Iraqi political national government. I have relatives that were killed in all the wars, I have relatives that were thrown on the borders during the Iraqi Iranian war because of our Iranian descent. I had many personal problems because of my critique of the Iraqi government's attitudes inside the country. The quality of my life would have been better if the Iraqi government was different. I am one of millions of people who were affected in a negative way by the government during our life inside Iraq. Yet, I understand that the government before this war was the national and official government, and nothing justifies the illegal war that happened to "liberate" the country. I had this position even before the war, and I believed that the only way for enhancing the lives of Iraqis is a change from the INSIDE. I was against the sanctions, against the war, and now I am against the occupation.

These elections are part of the bush project in the Middle East. The bush project in Iraq… and taking a part of this election justifies every part of this project. It justifies the dual containment, it justifies the first war, and the sanctions, and it justifies the war of occupation and the tens of thousands of lives taken because of it. Voting in these elections justifies every murder that happened, and every illegal move that the bush administration made.

Every move that the bush administration did on behalf of the Iraqis would be justified by the fact that people will be going to elections. Didn't this administration come all the way to "liberate" us? Didn't they come all the way to give us the right to elect? Aren't these their fake excuses to come and destroy our country? Anyone who votes will unfortunately complete the bush story and make it look as if everyone is happy with what happened.

It is not about Sunnis and Shias, it is about people taking pro-national position, and others surrendering (under the name of pragmatism) to the illegal brutal super power. Take a look on the Iraqis positions: As-Sadr is an important Shia leader and he is boycotting the elections, Al-Pachachi markets himself as a secular leader and he is taking a part of the elections. Some sunnis are taking a part of the elections, many shia are not. It is a matter of national position more than an ethnic division.

Countries surrounding Iraq are supporting the elections because little bush said so, Iran is supporting the elections because they will be the winners in case the SCIRI candidate (supported by Sistani) wins. No one supports the elections because he believes in them.

Yes, read what he writes...

Quote:

Attack the country, destroy the public sector to make it a part of the global capitalist village, destroy the national army to keep other US friends in the region safe, remove the national political leaders and put puppets (i.e. karazay, allawi, abu mazin, etc.). Whether we liked the Iraqi national political leaders or not, they were the legal leaders of the country. And even if we didn't like them and believed that we should remove them by an illegal foreign invasion, destroying the civic divisions of the government is not linked to removing them at all. It was possible to remove the political leaders without destroying the civil ministries with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis working in them. These hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were the legal national civil government of Iraq.

Attacking a country and removing its political leaders is illegal and invalid in all the international laws and conventions. Attacking a country and destroying every functioning institute and killing thousands upon thousands of people is a historical genocide that people will never forget. There are differences between the thousands of civilians killed and displaced in Fallujah (and other Iraqi cities) and the thousands killed in Auschwitz, but there are many similarities too.

I am one of the people affected by the Iraqi political national government. I have relatives that were killed in all the wars, I have relatives that were thrown on the borders during the Iraqi Iranian war because of our Iranian descent. I had many personal problems because of my critique of the Iraqi government's attitudes inside the country. The quality of my life would have been better if the Iraqi government was different. I am one of millions of people who were affected in a negative way by the government during our life inside Iraq. Yet, I understand that the government before this war was the national and official government, and nothing justifies the illegal war that happened to "liberate" the country. I had this position even before the war, and I believed that the only way for enhancing the lives of Iraqis is a change from the INSIDE. I was against the sanctions, against the war, and now I am against the occupation.

These elections are part of the bush project in the Middle East. The bush project in Iraq… and taking a part of this election justifies every part of this project. It justifies the dual containment, it justifies the first war, and the sanctions, and it justifies the war of occupation and the tens of thousands of lives taken because of it. Voting in these elections justifies every murder that happened, and every illegal move that the bush administration made.

Every move that the bush administration did on behalf of the Iraqis would be justified by the fact that people will be going to elections. Didn't this administration come all the way to "liberate" us? Didn't they come all the way to give us the right to elect? Aren't these their fake excuses to come and destroy our country? Anyone who votes will unfortunately complete the bush story and make it look as if everyone is happy with what happened.

It is not about Sunnis and Shias, it is about people taking pro-national position, and others surrendering (under the name of pragmatism) to the illegal brutal super power. Take a look on the Iraqis positions: As-Sadr is an important Shia leader and he is boycotting the elections, Al-Pachachi markets himself as a secular leader and he is taking a part of the elections. Some sunnis are taking a part of the elections, many shia are not. It is a matter of national position more than an ethnic division.

Countries surrounding Iraq are supporting the elections because little bush said so, Iran is supporting the elections because they will be the winners in case the SCIRI candidate (supported by Sistani) wins. No one supports the elections because he believes in them.

Patrick Henry: "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace!—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethen are already in the field. Why stay we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!"

It is interesting to note that this administration which knew everything before the invasion, ... now, they know nothing. ...

... I would say we pull out after the elections if the Iraqi's that are elected ask us to; otherwise stay and clean up the mess that we created if they ask us to do that. ...

But that is giving a lot of faith in the legitimacy of the election that I just don't have.

... Selfish? you damn right. I couldnt give a rats ass about the Iraqis, if they cant rise up on their own and take back the Bosnia that was once theirs, then screw em. I just dont want any more American and British troops to die over this stupid cause.

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.

Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

So now you are objecting to their newly found humility?

Is that what it is? I thought it was hubris.

Yes, leave if the Iraq Assembly asks us to leave; stay if the Iraqi Assembly asks us to stay.