iraqi democracy

[open mind]

http://www.fair.org/extra/0404/caucuses.html
nothing like truly free democratic elections.

[Love As Arson]

If we truly cared for democracy we would leave and let the Iraqis decide for themselves but we won't because they might choose a form of government and leaders we don't like.

[Love As Arson]

It's in the best interest of the world that a radical government doesnt take control.
Democracy cannot be forced. It won't work if the people do not want it. A democracy implemented by another country is not a democracy because the people played no role in deciding they needed it.
We have to let them decide which form of government they want. If we don't we will continue to see uprisings and terrorist attacks. It is really in our best interest to hand power over to Iraqi's to decide what form of government they want and who they want to lead it. It looks worse now because we are deciding that for them. More than that we are deciding who they can and cannot elect. That isn't much of a democracy if you ask me.

[Love As Arson]

From everything I've seen poll wise Iraqis want a democracy.
Perhaps they do but it isn't a democracy if the people didn't create it. If they can't vote for who they want then that is not a democracy. We are picking and choosing who they can vote for. Would you say that is right?
If we love democracy so much then we need to let it happen by itself. A democracy imposed is no democracy at all and it won't work because the people won't accept it.

[Love As Arson]

Who said they can't vote for who they want?
They can't. They are voting for who we deem good for the job.

[Love As Arson]

The US won't sit by as a leader that they don't approve of is elected. You and I both know that.

[vikingstrike182]

The US won't sit by as a leader that they don't approve of is elected. You and I both know that.
Of course. Who wouldn't? You are going to liberate a country just to set up another enemy? No. I see the provisional government leader on June 30th being more accepting to the US, but after that I see that support probably dropping. You need someone that will work with you to stabilize the country, and why would it be wrong to set up another ally in the Middle East? We have Saudi Arabia already working with us on the oil exports.

[Love As Arson]

Of course. Who wouldn't? You are going to liberate a country just to set up another enemy? No. I see the provisional government leader on June 30th being more accepting to the US, but after that I see that support probably dropping. You need someone that will work with you to stabilize the country, and why would it be wrong to set up another ally in the Middle East? We have Saudi Arabia already working with us on the oil exports.
I don't think we should set up any leader. I think we need to let the Iraqi's decide what is best for themselves. Whether or not that is a democracy shouldn't matter to us. Democracy is not always possible in some regions of the world. It may take a monarch or a theocracy for a government to work there.
A democracy is for the people and by the people but the democracy in Iraq was for us and by us which makes it meaningless.

[vikingstrike182]

I don't think we should set up any leader. I think we need to let the Iraqi's decide what is best for themselves. Whether or not that is a democracy shouldn't matter to us. Democracy is not always possible in some regions of the world. It may take a monarch or a theocracy for a government to work there.
A democracy is for the people and by the people but the democracy in Iraq was for us and by us which makes it meaningless.
I never said democracy was the answer. I just said that I beleive it would not be wise for someone to come into power that will not work with the coalition in stabalizing the country. I understand that democracy is not always the best option, but I think that whatever type of government that is setup should have peoples opinion and say. I dont believe that we should let them vote on 5 terrorist organization leaders, but give them some good solid options for the few months or so that the interim government will be in power.

[Love As Arson]

I never said democracy was the answer. I just said that I beleive it would not be wise for someone to come into power that will not work with the coalition in stabalizing the country. I understand that democracy is not always the best option, but I think that whatever type of government that is setup should have peoples opinion and say. I dont believe that we should let them vote on 5 terrorist organization leaders, but give them some good solid options for the few months or so that the interim government will be in power.
The type of government that is being set up isn't the peoples choice. We are making them have a democracy.

[yeat182]

The type of government that is being set up isn't the peoples choice. We are making them have a democracy.

which will give them a choice....that is a pretty lame arguement.

[Love As Arson]

which will give them a choice....that is a pretty lame arguement.
It will give them a choice of what? A choice to elect leaders we see fit? The choice to have a form of government only we approve of? As I said before you cannot force democracy on a people. They have to do it themselves and if we cared about democracy like we said we do. If we care about the Iraqi people doing things for themselves we would leave and allow for them to make their own choices.

[SwingingMics]

It will give them a choice of what? A choice to elect leaders we see fit? The choice to have a form of government only we approve of? As I said before you cannot force democracy on a people. They have to do it themselves and if we cared about democracy like we said we do. If we care about the Iraqi people doing things for themselves we would leave and allow for them to make their own choices.
Anyone can run, anyone can be elected, everyone can vote - hence democracy, hence a choice.

[Love As Arson]

Anyone can run, anyone can be elected, everyone can vote - hence democracy, hence a choice.
That is false. Not everyone can run or be elected.The choice is limited to who we see fit. If we cared for a choice we would have overthrown Saddam and left so they could decide how to lead themselves.

[SwingingMics]

That is false. Not everyone can run or be elected.The choice is limited to who we see fit. If we cared for a choice we would have overthrown Saddam and left so they could decide how to lead themselves.
They are aloud to decide for themselves now, where as before if they decided for themselves, they were killed.

[vikingstrike182]

That is false. Not everyone can run or be elected.The choice is limited to who we see fit. If we cared for a choice we would have overthrown Saddam and left so they could decide how to lead themselves.
And then have them turn into a warlord run country just like Afghanistan.

[yeat182]

It will give them a choice of what? A choice to elect leaders we see fit? The choice to have a form of government only we approve of? As I said before you cannot force democracy on a people. They have to do it themselves and if we cared about democracy like we said we do. If we care about the Iraqi people doing things for themselves we would leave and allow for them to make their own choices.

it will give them a choice which they've never had before. even if the only choices for the first election are ones we see fit, in the future they will be able to determine their own future, and elect those canidates they want, which is infinetly better than living under a tyranical dictator. If in the future they elect to change their government that will be their choice, but to immediately install a monarch or other absolute power is robbing these people of the oppertunity to have a voice in their government.

[yeat182]

That is false. Not everyone can run or be elected.The choice is limited to who we see fit. If we cared for a choice we would have overthrown Saddam and left so they could decide how to lead themselves.

that only applies to the first election, not elections in the future. much like our own democracy, in which the people did not elect our first president...

[Sinister Rouge]

Iraq is closer to civil war than democracy.

[Love As Arson]

Iraq is going to be the next Afghanistan if we don't let them take control of their own destiny. The government will be weak and they will only control Baghdad. I say leave and let them struggle and decide how they want to live. The struggle is an important part of creating a government that will last.

[yeat182]

What the hell are you talking about "taking control of their destiny"? As of now we are giving power up in June. If we leave without installing some sort of preliminary government you'll have strong men control territories inside Iraq just like Latin America saw.

yeah, men like saddam. good men can't take over a country in anarchy, only evil men who are willing to kill and do horrible things to maintain their power. without US help Iraq won't be an afghanistan, it will be an Iran or revert to a lesser version of Saddam's Iraq.

[Sinister Rouge]

Iraq is going to be the next Afghanistan if we don't let them take control of their own destiny. The government will be weak and they will only control Baghdad. I say leave and let them struggle and decide how they want to live. The struggle is an important part of creating a government that will last.

You are right, but I think it too bloody of a situation and it would make the US look worse than they already look. Regardless through democracy or bloodshed, Iraq will trun into a Shia fundementalist state. The Sunni minority will always protest and we will see many uprisings. Iraq becoming a good democracy is more idealistic than reality. What the US really wants to do with Iraq is create a "client" state where they have their "soverignty" but they will be our "allies" and allow our troops in the region. We will take advantage of their people for oil and corporate profit. We also have a nice staging ground for invading Iran or Syria.

The uprisings going on send a clear message to the US. The people want automity and no US interference. For awhile we only had attacks in the Sunni Triangle mostly with the Sunnis fighting us. Now the Shia, who Rumsfeld said would greet us with flowers and dancing, our attacking our troops. Now no part of Iraq is really safe and US casualties will increase rapidly. Arresting or killing Sadr will make the situation worse and recruit more people for his cause. My fellow Americans, we are FUCKED. Bush has no idea and never even had a clue about what postwar Iraq would be like. Great war planning but terrible postwar planning.

President Warbrain :badteeth: and the Chickenhawks :chickenru need to be removed.

[Sinister Rouge]

yeah, men like saddam. good men can't take over a country in anarchy, only evil men who are willing to kill and do horrible things to maintain their power. without US help Iraq won't be an afghanistan, it will be an Iran or revert to a lesser version of Saddam's Iraq.

Iraq will become like Iran regardless. A Shia fundementalist will be elected and the US will look bad if they interfere with democracy like the US has done countless times. Not to mention ethnic violence will erupt all over the country. Installing secular democracy in Iraq is near impossible.

[Sinister Rouge]

A lot of pesamistic assumtions in this thread. Who would have thought in 87' or 88' the Soviet Union would turn into a democracy in 3 years?

Russia turned into a democracy way too fast, it hurt people when they lived off socialism of the USSR. Russia has been struggling economically for years. I also thought there were problems with Russia's recnt elections.

Conservatives question Bush

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/07/politics/main610787.shtml

[vikingstrike182]

I just think that we need to keep in mind it wont happen over night. We have to give it time to root and take effect.

[yeat182]

I'm not arguing how good or bad Russia's democracy is or isnt. I'm just saying you are assuming that Iraq will fall in the same line as Iran with no hopes of democracy. That's an unfair assumption.

not to mention russia completely changed economies, not only governments, which was the main reason for the turmoil in the country. people went from being poor lazy communists, to a more or less capatlist economy and that was a big change.

[Sinister Rouge]

I'm not arguing how good or bad Russia's democracy is or isnt. I'm just saying you are assuming that Iraq will fall in the same line as Iran with no hopes of democracy. That's an unfair assumption.

It may be assumption, but it is a likely and realistic assumption. The Shia are the majority of the country.

Also, there are armed militias, civil war could happen, there is more of a chance of that happening than a stable democracy. I would love to be optimistic, but I can't when we have a president who doesn't really know what is going on.

[Sinister Rouge]

How is is more likely than democracy or some form of stable government taking control? Is there a popular uprising that's not being reported around Iraq? You have no clue that is more likely to be civil war than democracy.

The only thing I agree with is that your assumption is realistic, but so is democracy.

There hasn't been a popular uprising yet, but these events going on may be a start of one. The fighting is getting worse. Another major mistake from the coalition and there will be a popular uprising. Shutting down Sadr's newspaper was an idiotic mistake by the coalition and a extremely catastrophic mistake. Before the newspaper shutdown, the Shia's were not really attacking our troops.

The Shia and Sunnis are both armed, if something goes wrong, there will be violence. The Shia were oppressed by a Sunni regime.

The Iraqis want us out, it is evident. The longer we stay, the more it becomes evident. We can't rush this either, damned if we stay, damned if we don't. It is all because Bush lied about WMD's and terror links.

[Sinister Rouge]

Majority of Iraqis do not want us to stay...its a proven fact. Even a lot of the Iraqis that support the US doesn't want us to stay.

And I never said their was a popular uprising...but mistakes by the coalition can start one. The Sadr uprising going on right now is extremely dangerous and his support may grow. And a major coalition mistake caused this.

I am not worried about a civil war right now, but in a couple years. The scary thing right now is that the Sunni and Shia militants are helping eachother attack our troops. But their differences will set them apart guaranteed.

[yeat182]

There hasn't been a popular uprising yet, but these events going on may be a start of one. The fighting is getting worse. Another major mistake from the coalition and there will be a popular uprising. Shutting down Sadr's newspaper was an idiotic mistake by the coalition and a extremely catastrophic mistake. Before the newspaper shutdown, the Shia's were not really attacking our troops.

The Shia and Sunnis are both armed, if something goes wrong, there will be violence. The Shia were oppressed by a Sunni regime.

The Iraqis want us out, it is evident. The longer we stay, the more it becomes evident. We can't rush this either, damned if we stay, damned if we don't. It is all because Bush lied about WMD's and terror links.


you act like these terrorists represent the majority of Iraq, they are a small, radical fringe. the majority of iraq just wants to get on with their lives. don't let the actions of a few radicals fool you into thinking a civil war is imminent.

[Sinister Rouge]

Is it a proven fact that the majority want us out now as in tomorrow, or out after it's stable?

I dont believe it was a mistake shutting down his paper. He was trying to grow support with his paper and I like the idea of using force to show you're serious. There is no evidence that his support may or has grown either.

But closing the paper backfired, and all hell has broken loose. I think arresting Sadr will be a mistake. You'll make a martyr.

[SwingingMics]

But closing the paper backfired, and all hell has broken loose. I think arresting Sadr will be a mistake. You'll make a martyr.
Who, if you are, are you voting for in November?

[Sinister Rouge]

Who, if you are, are you voting for in November?

Although I do like Nader alot and have met him(told him not to run), I will vote for John Kerry. I will criticize Kerry though.

I do not like Kerry's trade policy, but its better than Bush. The WTO needs to be terminated.

[Sinister Rouge]

You're right we should let him continue to try to gain power and preach attacks on our troops

But he wasn't attacking our troops...now he is.

[Sinister Rouge]

you act like these terrorists represent the majority of Iraq, they are a small, radical fringe. the majority of iraq just wants to get on with their lives. don't let the actions of a few radicals fool you into thinking a civil war is imminent.

a few radicals is all it takes to start a war....one boy started World War I.

[Sinister Rouge]

he was telling everyone to attack our troops

The advice went unanswered and the Shia's weren't attacking our troops, the Sunnis and the Fetayeen were. Sadr had not done any military action before the closing. Shias are protesting because we call ourselfs champions of freedom of press but we shutdown a newspaper. If sadr was attacking our troops, it would be smart to shut it down but the attackers of our troops were Sunni and Saddam supporters.

[SwingingMics]

Although I do like Nader alot and have met him(told him not to run), I will vote for John Kerry. I will criticize Kerry though.

I do not like Kerry's trade policy, but its better than Bush. The WTO needs to be terminated.
Kerry has maybe 2 policy's.

And a third which is: I'm not Bush.

You have to at least respect Bush for having strong beliefs and convictions and sticking with them.
Kerry cannot say that.

[UndefinedBoy]

Kerry has maybe 2 policy's.

And a third which is: I'm not Bush.

You have to at least respect Bush for having strong beliefs and convictions and sticking with them.
Kerry cannot say that.

I don't really feel the need to respect Bush for having strong beliefs which I don't agree with at all.

I'm not really into passionate homophobes.

[SwingingMics]

Who are you voting for and why?

[UndefinedBoy]

Please......bashing because a man has his moral beliefs. You're not a homophobe if you disagree with gay marriage. Cheney has a daughter who is gay and he is also against gay marriage. It's hard to believe he's a homophobe.

Bush wants to ban gay marriage because he feels marriage is being threatened by gays. He is afraid of what they will do to what he feels is holy. He's scared of them.

And as for who I'm voting for, I'm really not sure yet. Kerry is also against gay marriage, and is just using the whole "civil union" bullshit as cover. He's like every other pussy democrat (except he's more of a Republican in disguise). But I obviously am not planning on voting for Bush...There are no perfect candidates, and there never are. We all know its come down to choosing the lesser of two evils.

[SwingingMics]

Bush wants to ban gay marriage because he feels marriage is being threatened by gays. He is afraid of what they will do to what he feels is holy. He's scared of them.

And as for who I'm voting for, I'm really not sure yet. Kerry is also against gay marriage, and is just using the whole "civil union" bullshit as cover. He's like every other pussy democrat (except he's more of a Republican in disguise). But I obviously am not planning on voting for Bush...There are no perfect candidates, and there never are. We all know its come down to choosing the lesser of two evils.
Bush kind of got backed into a corner on the gay marriage thing. I don't know where I stand on it really, but for him if it's left up to the states, and a state made it legal for gay marriage, the other states would have to recognize that law, so Bush either had to let that happen or push for a Constitutional amendment banning it.

[Sinister Rouge]

He's not scared of them. He's scared of what would happen to marriage. Big diffrence.

Gay marriage won't do anything to heterosexual marriage. Divorce is a much bigger problem for marriage.

[Sinister Rouge]

Bush wants to ban gay marriage because he feels marriage is being threatened by gays. He is afraid of what they will do to what he feels is holy. He's scared of them.

And as for who I'm voting for, I'm really not sure yet. Kerry is also against gay marriage, and is just using the whole "civil union" bullshit as cover. He's like every other pussy democrat (except he's more of a Republican in disguise). But I obviously am not planning on voting for Bush...There are no perfect candidates, and there never are. We all know its come down to choosing the lesser of two evils.

I am voting for Kerry because I know that even though I disagree with him on a lot of issues, he won't pull stupid shit like Bush does.

I do like Nader alot and I have met him. He found my NOFX "War On Errorism" shirt pretty fuckin hilarious :)

[SwingingMics]

I am voting for Kerry because I know that even though I disagree with him on a lot of issues, he won't pull stupid shit like Bush does.

I do like Nader alot and I have met him. He found my NOFX "War On Errorism" shirt pretty fuckin hilarious :)
Kerry is the biggest flip flopper of all time, look at his voting record.

[Sinister Rouge]

Kerry is the biggest flip flopper of all time, look at his voting record.

I rather have a president who changes his position if the issue doesn't work than to have a president who stays the course and the course is off a cliff.

Bush is also guilty of "flip flopping". He is for No Child Left Behind, then he underfunds it for example.

[SwingingMics]

Kerry votes for "No Child Left Behind" but than denounces it publicly. Kerry does not really stay a course, because he has no set course.

[Sinister Rouge]

Kerry votes for "No Child Left Behind" but than denounces it publicly. Kerry does not really stay a course, because he has no set course.

He doesn't denouce the program, he denounces the president underfunding it.

[Justin_stacy]

I changes his position if the issue doesn't work .

or as in Kerry's case, a "president" who changes his "positions" as the issue rises and falls in popularity...i.e. a president with no core beliefs...

[Sinister Rouge]

or as in Kerry's case, a "president" who changes his "positions" as the issue rises and falls in popularity...i.e. a president with no core beliefs...

Kerry has core beliefs, it may not be as strong as Bush's right wing idealogical beliefs, but he has some core beliefs.

I would take Kerry's "flip-flopping" over Bush's "misleading" any day. Kerry isn't the perfect candidate, but Kerry can attack Bush on more issues than Bush can attack Kerry on.

[ibanez4life]

Kerry has core beliefs, it may not be as strong as Bush's right wing idealogical beliefs, but he has some core beliefs.

I would take Kerry's "flip-flopping" over Bush's "misleading" any day. Kerry isn't the perfect candidate, but Kerry can attack Bush on more issues than Bush can attack Kerry on.

If you knew anything about leadership, you would know indecisivness
is way worse than making a sure, but wrong, decision. After a sure decision is made, a re-evaluation of the problem can be made. But indecisivness does not allow enough time to see what needs to be done.

[Sinister Rouge]

If you knew anything about leadership, you would know indecisivness
is way worse than making a sure, but wrong, decision. After a sure decision is made, a re-evaluation of the problem can be made. But indecisivness does not allow enough time to see what needs to be done.

Indecisivness is bad, I agree, but I really do not think Kerry will be indescisive. He studies the issue before making a decision.

The problem with Bush is not his sure decisions, it is he doesn't re-evaluate the problem and he is too idealogical or the decision is to benefical to him and his rich buddies to fix problems. This is also extremely bad. There is a problem with a steady course off a cliff.

I want leaders to be decisive if he has no time to make a decision, but looks at the options when he has time to make the decision. I also want leaders, not misleaders.

[yeat182]

a few radicals is all it takes to start a war....one boy started World War I.

that one boy was part of a larger organization, but i get your point. at the same time though, you can say one person to win the war.

[yeat182]

I am voting for Kerry because I know that even though I disagree with him on a lot of issues, he won't pull stupid shit like Bush does.

I do like Nader alot and I have met him. He found my NOFX "War On Errorism" shirt pretty fuckin hilarious :)

he won't pull stupid shit because he won't do anything. he'll be more inactive than clinton.

[Justin_stacy]

Kerry has core beliefs, it may not be as strong as Bush's right wing idealogical beliefs, but he has some core beliefs. .
So give me some of Kerry's core "left wing ideological beliefs," give me an issue he hasn't constantly flip-flopped on?

but Kerry can attack Bush on more issues than Bush can attack Kerry on.
Obviously not from his attack speaches and commercials...it looks to me like he's running out of things...

[Sinister Rouge]

So give me some of Kerry's core "left wing ideological beliefs," give me an issue he hasn't constantly flip-flopped on?


Obviously not from his attack speaches and commercials...it looks to me like he's running out of things...

Kerry is not running out on things, Kerry doesn't have as much money to spend on ads like Bush does. Bush has a $100 million dollar advantage over Kerry. Thankfully, we have 527's like Moveon.org.

[Justin_stacy]

Kerry is not running out on things, Kerry doesn't have as much money to spend on ads like Bush does. Bush has a $100 million dollar advantage over Kerry. Thankfully, we have 527's like Moveon.org.

Its nice to see that we both agree that Kerry has no core beliefs.... But as to what you said, speeches are free and there are more then enough liberal associations that set up these "free" form(s) of publicity.... So again if there was something new for Kerry to bash bush on, he'd have no problem getting that message out...

And I too am glad to have a group like Moveon.org, its nice that the public can finally see foreign money buying people into the white house. I mean, of course the Chinese did it during the Clinton administration, but now its out in the open and easier for the public to see…

[Sinister Rouge]

Its nice to see that we both agree that Kerry has no core beliefs.... But as to what you said, speeches are free and there are more then enough liberal associations that set up these "free" form(s) of publicity.... So again if there was something new for Kerry to bash bush on, he'd have no problem getting that message out...

And I too am glad to have a group like Moveon.org, its nice that the public can finally see foreign money buying people into the white house. I mean, of course the Chinese did it during the Clinton administration, but now its out in the open and easier for the public to see…

It seems to me that Kerry always finds something new to attack Bush on...Bush is just so easy to attack because there are so many things you can attack Bush on.

Foriegn money is being used because foriegners are pissed off at Bush...Bush effects the whole world, not just the US. Foriegners use money to affect the US election. The US uses the CIA to affect foriegn elections.

[Justin_stacy]

It seems to me that Kerry always finds something new to attack Bush on...Bush is just so easy to attack because there are so many things you can attack Bush on
I don't know…..I, at least, catch one of Kerry's speeches a week and every one is the same old worn out Liberal half truth(s), basically revolving around the same three topics, with little to nothing new being added.......so either bush isn't as hard to attack as you think he is or Kerry's (and his speech writers) just plain stupid...me personally, I think it might be a little of both…….

[Justin_stacy]

Foriegn money is being used because foriegners are pissed off at Bush....
Chirac and Schröder pissed alot of americans off, should we then donate money to get them out of office? or shouldn't it be left up to those that actually have to live under these people?

[yeat182]

Chirac and Schröder pissed alot of americans off, should we then donate money to get them out of office? or shouldn't it be left up to those that actually have to live under these people?

sign me up, i'll donate.

[Justin_stacy]

sign me up, i'll donate.
oh well thanks for completely destroying my point...... :angryfire

[open mind]

Who said they can't vote for who they want?
did you not read the article i put a link to?first off we choose who can nominate canidates,then we allow the people we like pick who can vote,so not only can they not pick nominees,most iraqi's can't vote.

[open mind]

how do you know this? We give power to a provisional governemnt in June as it stands. Then later on they have open elections. You might assume now that they will vote for who we deem a good job, but you have about as much of an idea of this as i do.
once again read the posted article.

[open mind]

Of course. Who wouldn't? You are going to liberate a country just to set up another enemy? No. I see the provisional government leader on June 30th being more accepting to the US, but after that I see that support probably dropping. You need someone that will work with you to stabilize the country, and why would it be wrong to set up another ally in the Middle East? We have Saudi Arabia already working with us on the oil exports.
we want a puppet that's what we'll get,then we set up secret police to make sure it stays that way.

[open mind]

which will give them a choice....that is a pretty lame arguement.
the vast majority of iraqis will not have a choice in the upcoming elections.

[open mind]

Anyone can run, anyone can be elected, everyone can vote - hence democracy, hence a choice.
read the article i posted when i started this thread.

[open mind]

What the hell are you talking about "taking control of their destiny"? As of now we are giving power up in June. If we leave without installing some sort of preliminary government you'll have strong men control territories inside Iraq just like Latin America saw.
we'll be pulling alot of the troops out but we will keep things like secret police in place,it's not like we're set to completly leave come june.

[open mind]

I dont know much about this author or site but I have questions about the article. First he doesnt list one name in his critique. Look through the whole article.

---"census experts in the Iraqi Planning Ministry had compiled a comprehensive proposal"

---"When they found out about it, Governing Council members were furious. "This could have changed things," an aide to a Shiite council member told the Times."

---"diplomatic officials have spoken out frankly, if anonymously, about their trepidation regarding a popularly chosen government"

---"Citing senior officials, the "

---"a senior State Department official explained"

The article might be 100% legit, but i hate articles where if you're going to criticize give a name so you can be held accountable.
the site is fair or fairness and accuracy in reporting,as far as i know they have a good rep and they've been around for a long while,mostly serving as a organization that points out what the mainstream press either doesn't know or refuses to cover,and they blast both parties.

[open mind]

Like I said I hate when credit is not given to criticism. I have a hard time trusting article when they give dissent from "unamed sources." You can't argue your point if you cant prove what the other people said is false.
the article cited articles written by the new york times,new republic,and the london telegraph,the last one quoted john pike an intel expert and cia counter terror chief vincent cannis traro.
it's not suprising administration officials and diplomats don't want to go on the record as it could cost them their jobs.
it's not like unamed sources are automattically wrong or off base either.

[open mind]

Karen Hughes was was the campaign adivsor for Bush said it best when talkign about annyomous sources. She said she refused to go "off record" now when she gives an interview because she says you have the tendency to exaggerate points and you let partisan feelings slip through because you have no fear on being called out on them.

I'm not saying they are automatically wrong. I'm just saying they're not automatically credible.
still people were quoted and mainstream press articles were cited...........

[open mind]

None of the major paper's that were cited had anything to do with dissent in the article. Yes they did site 2 people but they also had nothing negative to say. All they did was comment on a special police force. Everything negative in the article was from an annoymous source.
the times article talked about us rejecting a realistic census.
something we officially say isn't doable.

[open mind]

First it never say realistic. You're assuming it was a realistic proposal.

That's beside the point. I didnt notice the Times one, but if i'm not wrong again that is the only cited source that shows any dissent at all. All the rest are unnamed.
it talks about a comprehensive proposal to get a census done in time for elections that we rejected.

[open mind]

i know what it says cause i read the article. I said that the article did site one source of dissent and that was from the NYT. Besides that it's all unnamed sources.
if you don't count the people quoted on maintaing control and making sure the people we want in power get and stay there thanks to a special police agency we'll maintain.

[open mind]

I'm tired of arguing this point. I posted all the unnamed dissent in the article.

---"census experts in the Iraqi Planning Ministry had compiled a comprehensive proposal"

---"When they found out about it, Governing Council members were furious. "This could have changed things," an aide to a Shiite council member told the Times."

---"diplomatic officials have spoken out frankly, if anonymously, about their trepidation regarding a popularly chosen government"

---"Citing senior officials, the "

---"a senior State Department official explained"

All the other sources besides the NYT citation does not talk negatively or show dissent. If you want to give the article full credibility with so many unnamed sources that's fine. I dont though cause i think it's bad journalism.
like say the informant that blew the whistle on nixon?
the cia counter terror head and that intel expert that were quoted talking about what mechanisms we're putting in place to control the political atmosphere also show that true democracy is not what we're aiming for i think.