Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Do We Want An Ignoramus for President?
Share:
by joellerose | September 13, 2007 at 02:35 pm
438 views | 4 Recommendations | 21 comments
Photos
From Hillary Clinton to Dennis Kucinich, all we hear from the Democratic candidates are petulant and childish complaints of impatience with the progress being made in Iraq. They seem to show no understanding of what is going on in Iraq or of our own history.
One of the many reasons we went into Iraq was to plant and nurture a seed of democracy and modernity into the geographic center of a world that exists in the seventh century, where disagreements are settled by cutting off heads and where little progress in science, medicine or human rights has taken place for a thousand years. This action was based on a selfish rationale, as well as a noble one, - that a modern and democratic Iraq would be a model and a magnet for the spread of cultural values that provided positive outlets for the yearnings of Arab peoples and would therefore substantially reduce their terrorist and warlike impulses. Democracies don’t usually start wars. Even with the known and also unforeseen difficulties that achieving this goal has presented, much progress has been made, and the goal is still worthwhile and achievable.
All kinds of signs and symbols of modernity are popping up in Iraq – from the succession of democratic elections to the cell phones, women’s groups, internet sites, newspaper offices and beauty contests that we see. But do any of the Democratic contenders show any signs of understanding the process that is taking place or any understanding of our own history, where it took a long time, and the putdown of many armed rebellions, to go from the War of Independence in 1775 to a united country after the Civil War ended in 1865?
The Iraqis are battling over oil and religious and ethnic differences. We battled over slavery and issues of federalism and states rights.
Why should Americans elect ignoramuses to the highest office in our land – ignoramuses who show no understanding of our own history and no ability to translate it into an understanding of the struggles facing us and the Iraqis today?
Of course, this presumes that the obstructionism taking place is due to ignorance; it may only just be a never-ending drive for political advantage at any cost - even of the good of the country. It may only be a continuation of the Bush Derangement Syndrome that has paralyzed liberal reasoning since the election of 2000. The Democrats may be well aware that a significant American military presence will be needed in Iraq for a decade.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
indierockcafe
Santa Cruz, California, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (21)
at 17:23 on September 13th, 2007
joellerose, Good stuff.
at 07:28 on September 14th, 2007
Boy you really had to stretch to equate an illegal war justified by lies and deceit with the Revolutionary War. I don't even want to know how your mind works to come up with that.
On the other hand your "bringing democracy" fallacy works just as well from the other direction. You assume that democracy can be shoved down someone's throat and that they will love you for doing it.
I'll let you in on a secret. Iraq was a democracy before we blew it up. No doubt an imperfect one but a democracy nonetheless.
at 08:33 on September 14th, 2007
I did not equate our Revolutionary War with our actions in Iraq; I pointed out that it took us a long time and much travail to become a peaceful and united country. Please don't distort what I said.
at 06:43 on September 15th, 2007
Back peddling again Jellyrose tut tut, when faced with the mildest peer review you wilt like a flower.
at 05:20 on September 14th, 2007
While I agree with you analysis of Hilary Clinton, and will add that she is possibly more dangerous to America than anyone else you care to name, I find the rest of the article reading like a childrens story.
Signs of modernity in Iraq ?? Where would they be, Do you have a link to some eveidence?
This is a particulaly warped veiw of history, it's just a tale for kids.
at 05:36 on September 14th, 2007
This site http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/iraq.htm lists 50 newpapers operating in Iraq. How many are owned and run by Iraqis is unknown. You can Google your other concerns. Do some research before you insult others.
at 07:11 on September 14th, 2007
I have done the research that is why I am questioning this. As for the link you gave me, it is bogus. None of the links on that page are real. Even if it were a real site, Iraqi's only have power for two hours per day, if they are lucky, so I doubt that any of them get to read these online newspapers. If you would like some solid information I would be happy to ask one of pour correspondents there. I talk to them daily, so that will be in about 6 hours time.
at 07:25 on September 14th, 2007
All of the links I tried worked fine. I cannot deal with outright lies.
at 07:46 on September 14th, 2007
Right you have deliberatly placed an article here that is completely false. You have been caught. The site you claim I am lying about is not in Iraq or has any connection to Iraq. It is an Australian site and all the nodes on it are hosted from Melbourne. Non of these papers exist in Iraq.
Creating news that is clearly false and to defned it is to denegrate the integrity of this site. I have all the tracers and whois searches, if you continue to do such things in the future I will report you for it.
Second Linking to a site that is known for spyeware is something i find complately unacceptable. If you did connect to any of those I would run a scan now.
Warning; All users.... The link given by joellerose above is spyware.
at 08:06 on September 14th, 2007
The site I cited came up on Answers.com and seems legitimate to answer the charge that no newspapers exist in Iraq. I have tried it several times and gone to several of the links provided. I detect no spyware, and the links seem to work fine. Another site that lists Iraqi newspapers is http://www.abyznewslinks.com/iraq.htm
at 06:38 on September 15th, 2007
Way to back peddle jellyrose, I thought you said 50. All these sites are on Wobat Web hosted by the Australian Iraqi community. There were only 4 links there cited as being Iraqi, and they all came from nodes in Melbourne Australia. The spyware is Castlemedia.
Again you give a fake link that smashes the credibility of your article. According to this Iraq has 1 TV station 1 Magazine and 1 news paper.
Where is the 50 you spoke of earlier. ??
You are deliberatly trying to decieve the readers of now public. I have grabed this screen to make a formal complaint.
at 07:03 on September 15th, 2007
You ought to come up for air. I said in my first response to you that I didn't know how many newspapers listed as Iraqi acutally were in Iraq. "How many are owned and run by Iraqis is unknown." The second site I listed names about a dozen Iraqi-based newspapers. What is your problem?
at 07:48 on September 15th, 2007
Suicide bomber attacks Iraq newspaper
By Paul von Zielbauer
Published: SUNDAY, AUGUST 27, 2006, International Herald Tribune (Excerpt)
BAGHDAD: "A suicide car bomber attacked Iraq's largest newspaper, detonating his vehicle inside its fortified compound in downtown Baghdad on Sunday and killing 2 people and wounding 20 others, the executive editor and government officials said."
The existence of newspapers, bloggers, internet sites, beauty contests, etc. is common knowledge that has been widely-reported as well.
at 08:51 on September 14th, 2007
What you are outlining, joellerose is known as "VIRAL" democracy. You drop it into to a country and everyone turns round and says why didn't we think of that? That's just what we are looking for! I wish you were right and that this could work. It has optimism written all over it and if that is not an American value then I don't know what is. Maybe it could have worked if the US government had not adopted the flawed "RAND" organization philosophy of order {i.e. hierarchical} through chaos. But where we find ourselves is with an unfulfilled utopian dream that did not work in Vietnam {viral drop number 1} and is showing little sign of taking hold in Iraq.
at 08:53 on September 14th, 2007
I admit the possibility; there are terrific problems ahead, but I hope you are wrong.
at 08:54 on September 14th, 2007
I admit the possibility; there are terrific problems ahead, but I hope you are wrong.
at 08:14 on September 15th, 2007
Good discussion. But make sure it stays focused on the issues and does degenerate in to personal attacks. And don't forget our terms of service.
at 09:39 on September 15th, 2007
joellerose, I like this story. It's good stuff. Please do not debate the poster you argue with. IT is an attempt to bait you so that later they will go to the editors and cherry pick comments to silence you, it has happened to me.
at 10:37 on September 15th, 2007
Thanks for your comment and your concern. I'm quite aware that leftist debating tricks include A. misstating what you said - and then arguing with the misstatement, and B. picking on a minor point and trying to drive it into the ground, ignoring your response. My replies are usually directed at the general readers, who may not recognize the nonsense that is taking place. It seems there are certain people here who can't stand to see an post that disagrees with their world view, and they follow you around to try to destroy your posts rather than having an honest discussion.
at 21:37 on September 17th, 2007
Leftist debating tricks? I really don't think the problem is someone misstating what you said or ignoring your response. Any disagreement with your statements is a problem because you want to present your slanted view uncontested.
An honest discussion is contesting your statements and discussing those differences.
at 03:26 on September 18th, 2007
A misstatement is saying I equated the American War of Independence with the Iraq War. The whole rant by SthPacific on Iraqi newspapers was a deliberate deception. I expect some disagreement in this forum with my point of view, but dishonesty is dishonesty.