Bush has stated that Iraq will be a Democracy:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B...AD&SECTION=HOME



And view of the recents events:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/internat...29PRES.html?8bl



My question is:

1. Is this a good example of Democracy?

2. Won't this incite the Iraq people more and cause resentment?

1. Is this a good example of Democracy?

I would say NO. Democracy takes a lot of work and more importantly support -- both from the government and especially the people. You can't just remove a dictator and declare a country a Democracy and tell the people "see things are better already".

The United States got to where it is because we worked incredibly hard at it. We fought wars and idealists tirelessly devoted their life's work to effecting change.

George Bush speaks as if Iraq has a constitution, is peaceful and is a contributing member to society. He has been successful in removing one dictator, it remains to be seen whether another will be installed.

2. Won't this incite the Iraq people more and cause resentment?

I think it has and it will continue to do so. When the US went down this path to remove Saddam Hussein, I don't ever think it really occurred to our leaders to figure out if that is what the Iraqi people really wanted. Its not like there were mass protests there advocating Democracy and we just pushed things over the line -- we just came in one day and said "you are a Democracy, figure it out".

Things will definitely get a whole lot worse there before they get better. For a Democracy to work, people have to want it to work. Not only that, they have to put in effort to make it work. If we all decided that we didn't feel like bothering to vote anymore then we'd basically have a constitutional monarchy.

The other thing is, you are asking Iraqis to make all these big changes in a culture that is usually pretty resistant to change and some aspects of life haven't changed significantly for hundreds of years. Just that alone is a huge challenge in the implementation of a democracy.

You believe what Bush says? Silly man.

I apologize, my bad. We shouldn't be too hard on Bush for this comment. I think that Iraq will be an "example" of democracy. Whether it is a good or bad example is yet to be determined, but mark Bush's words, it will most definately be an example.

1.)Obviously not, it is further evidence that the reason why we are in Iraq has nothing to do with democracy. I have heard in the past that the reason why the military closes down the press in certain regions of Iraq is because of the untruthfulness of stories that they publish. More specifically, stories stating that U.S. soldiers purposely gun down civilians, etc. At the same time, we are told repeatedly that it is only a handful of people who are causing us problems and that no one really agrees with the troublemakers. If that was truly the case, then the newspaper publishers(no matter how outlandish or tricky their lies) would go bankrupt. It's obvious that the hearts and minds of those outside of the "Sunni triangle" is not with us. We are truly kidding ourselves on this one.

Ok this is my opinion. Image here in America you see a newspaper that says "terrorist set bombs here" You can imagine that it is very dangerous not to mention hurt the public. We americans have to live in a free society right? Well if that said it, it compromises public security. That is like threatning to blow up something.

The media policy institued by Bremer was CPA Order Number 14, in which media are prohibited from broadcasting or publishing material that incites violence against any individual or group "including racial, ethnic, religious groups, and women"; material which encourages civil disorder; or "incites violence against coalition forces." Violators, if convicted, can be fined up to $1,000 or sentenced to up to one year in prison.

Only people who are dumber than toast would believe that Iraq is ready to have a constitution the same as our founding fathers erected. There are pragmatic reasons to restrict free speech in Iraq. There ain't no George Washington there.

First of all, way to classify those who might disagree with you, hugo!

I have to wonder, though, were we really ready? It took us almost 200 years to really start applying the Constitution to everyone in this country. Even now, there are those who believe that, for pragmatic reasons, restricting free speech in this country makes sense. I'd say, better to start off with something to live up to, than with something you plan on changing "once the situation is better." Will it really end up changing?

Who says the majority of Iraqis want a western style democracy? That is quite presumptuous (if not imperialistic) on our part. The fact is--if we were to truly allow democracy, we wouldn't like who they would choose.

It's hard to silence the will of the people......


-April 2nd Washington Post article by Sewell Chan

So this is what those papers were printing? They were telling people where to set bombs? Can you point to an article that states that fact? There are many newspapers that print things that aren't necessarily true. We don't shut them down. We don't stop people from putting instructions on how to make explosives on the internet. It is freedom of speech, and has (good or bad) been a cornerstone of our society. If we want to set an example of freedom, we have to take the good with the bad. The problem is that we don't want freedom in Iraq... we want control in Iraq. We want to instill our "values" there. Problem is... you can't enforce democracy.

It's Iraq, but look to our own constitution:

As I understand it the paper in question was calling for the killing of Americans.

The Incitement Test (Brandenburg)
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

If the reports I've seen are right shutting the paper down is legal, at least in the USA!

I believe the porper word for this is sedition - encouraging rebellion against government or authority. I also believe that sedition is excluded from the 1st amendment by Constition.
Situation on the ground in Iraq is such than many Shiite mullahs (not all, but many) demand imposition of Iranian-style fundamentalist government and are most hateful towards Americans. The behavior of the people professing this Anti-american zeal is often inhuman and barbric. Recall the attack on 4 civilians in Baghdad, where their bodies were dragged through the streets and finally chopped into pieces by shovel and thrown around the city. What does this tell you about the mentality of these people? Should we allow them to spread their venomous hateful propaganda or should we stop them and save lives, lives not only of Americans, but also of thousands of innocent Iraqis who die in greater numbers in anti-American attacks than Americans themselves? Terrorism in Iraq has no human face. If you'regullible enough to beleve that terrorist somehow express frustrations of Iraqi people and try to advance the Iraqi populace, how would you explain that in typical attack, for every 1-2 Americans 10-15 innocent Iraqi civilians die?? If Iraqi guerillas try to help their fellow countrymen (although many of them are "tourists" from neighboring countries), why do they disregard all the senseless suffering and massacre of the civilians caused by their attacks???

Well said Illuminati. I mean, if the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Orange County Register (gotta plug my ol' stompin grounds) encouraged the killing of United States soldiers in an effort to purge the imperialistic administration, they'd be shut down faster than you can cry ACLU. It's encouraging murder and should not be tolerated.

I don't anyone really knows what was written in those newspapers so to try and speculate is troubling. All we know is that the US military said they were inciting rebellion against the United States.

If this rebellion was to go out and kill Americas, then yeah, that would be grounds to close the paper. If the paper calls for rebellion by simply not working with the Americans, then there should be no problem with that. If some people take not working with the Americans as attacking the Americans, then you can't blame the newspaper for that.

I believe there was a suggestion that the paper was closed for the latter reason, which means the US is controlling free speech.

Well, it certainly looks as if we've picked quite a fight over a newspaper of all things. Rather than publish our own and try to compete for people's hearts and minds, we've closed down a paper and as a result, have created widespread protests. Could the option of closing it occured after we tried to compete through creating a paper more sympathetic to our cause?


(Washington Post article by Khalid Mohammad, April 2nd)

The paper was printing false propaganda, with the obvious intent of inciting violence against American forces.
Sounds reasonable to me. We have clear and present danger laws against inciting violence with speech, too. Obviously, in our case, the line would be drawn much differently than Iraq with its baby government and martial law. I don't think anyone would benefit at this point from a Rwanda-style violence directed against the new government, police forces, and our troops.

and to add a little more.

I think that would come off as the print version of Baghdad Bob. We don't need a news paper that one, few Iraqis will read, and two has nothing in it but 'please, we're trying to help you guys' and box scores from the NHL, NBA, NFL and Major League Baseball since Americans will be the only ones readin it. It looks better for us if independent Iraqi publishers promote our presence there than if we do.

I agree with Titus on this, we should allow them to form their own press because being owned and operated by Iraqis will establish their credibility. The only problem with this is that we must not allow them to use their credibility to influence the public with lies about the occupation forces. If we do commit a crime though, we must fess up to it rather then sweep it under the rug and prevent it from being reported, it will seem to oppressive.

The widespread protest against the closing of the newspaper has now turned into open warfare with 8 U.S. soldiers being killed in Baghdad while Spanish troops have opened fire and killed about 30 Iraqis in Najaf.

It’s rather ironic that Paul Bremer closed the newspaper for supposedly inciting violence and in doing so has created real violence and death. Iraq is going up in flames. Good job Mr. Bremer.

Bremer is not responsible for the violence in Najaf. The ones that carried out the violence are. And what if that paper were left up? It would continue to spread hate and promote acts of violence nation wide. So in the long run, it was smarter than letting it continue to put our troops at risk.

Well....Is it a bad job to apply the tenants of our own constitution, with it "incitement limits" to a chaotic situation? To shut down a newspaper or limit or eliminate the voice of a terror-supporting Jihadist is nothing short of common sense, irrespective of the short term ramifications.

The political ideology and theological war that is going on is a just one from an educated Western perspective, but as usual, Americans, born and raised in a relatively free and educated society, continue to be naive when dealing with an illiterate population controlled and incited to violence by illiterate "clerics".

This naivety is "not" unique to the Vulcans and Bushites, but also to the Clintonistas, Reaganites, and the Carteristas. If you acknowledge naivety is rampant in the the USA...study European opinion, especially in Spain!

My question is:

1. Is this a good example of Democracy?

2. Won't this incite the Iraq people more and cause resentment?



Yes! Freedom of the press in Iraq with the exception of a bunch of thugs operating a newspaper that incites those so inclined by advocating killing everyone and anyone in their path that is for Iraqi freedom. This al-Sadr and his followers (3,000) are thugs with no intentions of living under a new and free Iraq. They are part of the old Iraq and Saddam...and thus deserved to be shut down, hunted down and captured or killed.

U.S. Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said yesterday in Baghdad. ``We will take action to maintain a safe and secure environment. Individuals who create violence, who incite violence, who execute violence against persons inside of Iraq will be hunted down and captured or killed.''

So...to avoid angering some of the Iraqi people, we are going to turn our heads and ignore a bunch of thugs with the intent of disrupting the freedom process and killing our troops not to mention innocent Iraqi people? I think not!

- Yahoo

Inflammatory? Yes. But reason enough to stifle free speech? Something the US has been touting as a benefit that the Iraqis have gained since we overthrew Hussein? That decision would depend on exactly what the articles actually said.

The article goes on to say :




I think the paper was lying. But I worry that shutting it down causes too much distrust of the forces over there. I would certainly question the powers that be if an American paper were shutdown for printing articles that questioned authority or suggested acts of violence were being reported incorrectly by authorities.

Voicing opposition is very different from enciting violence against our forces. Laying blame on our forces for the deaths of civilians is very different from enciting violence against our forces. I would be very interested to see the (translated) articles in question. If they were reporting what they believe to be fact and not calling for violence agains our military, then I don't see how we can shut them down without expecting to be called hypocrites. But again, I have not seen copies of the articles that led to the decsion, so I can not really pass judgement on this issue.

As opposed to allowing a paper to print that terrorist strikes against Iraqis are actually American missiles hitting the population? Yes, that's sure to gain trust. It certainly worked for the Tutsis.

Iraq's consitution is what, twenty-eight days in effect? A month is not a long time to gauge the limits of free speech. I wonder if Iraqis against shutting down the newspaper outside Kufa view the call to kill Americans as no more extreme than a Hustler publication.



I know you guys remember the murder-spree the Clintons have committed from Arkansas to the White House. Here's one looney site:



Is this inflammatory? Quite. Is this seditious? It depends on what your voter registration card says. The state of Iraqi's occupation (making targets of Coalition forces, Iraqi police and foreign civilians, the absence of Islamic religious reformation to keep apace with Christian and Jewish reformations to speed up Muslim secularization), is a breeding ground for open hostility against infidels. I've been opposed to invading Iraq from day one. The moment Bush asked for authorization to invade Iraq I didn't ask myself would we invade, but when. I was angered we left Osama alone and sought Saddam instead. Angry that somehow I was supposed to believe that toppling Saddam would strike a fatal blow at a nebulous organization like terrorism. But ignoring the risk Al Hawza poses to American soldiers right now in the interests of free speech could mean more dead soldiers and civilians.

There's so much Iraqis have to sort out and spread on their own. I give them two years from the date of our withdrawal to gain a foothold on a formally recognized republic. If Iraqi police and citizens don't stand up to extremists like Moktada al-Sadr though, aren't willing to die for their freedom, I'm afraid the most we did was prime Iraq for another dictator.

Titus, your own argument works against itself. It is not the newspaper causing the violence in Iraq. It is the people committing the acts themselves. It's a reflexive irony, only some don't like to realize the similarities--Bremer closed the paper down causing protests and violence fearing that the newspaper would cause protests and violence. Whereas the newspaper was a purely hypothetical situation, Bremer's actions realistically created the situation he was looking to avoid. Can't blame Bremer, but we also can't blame the newspaper. Shutting it down was a massive mistake, a lapse in judgment.

Shutting down a newspaper won't prevent the messages from getting out. It merely promotes even more criticism of America within Iraq. Many newspapers here in America print inflammatory and flat-out false information, salicious, yet we don't shut the newspaper down.

There is too little information to judge. That's the problem with most politicians--they don't give us the information we need to make valid judgments. It's like being on a jury where most of the evidence is suppressed from the records. It is the foolish man who believes government does everything within the best interests of its populace.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/06/...main/index.html



This news is horrible. Since the newspaper was a mouthpiece for Al-Sadr, the closing of the newspapers really backfired in our face. All it did was incite them and give them a position and reason to rebel. The closing of the newspapers was a bad decision and gave the insurgents an excuse to rally and cause more deaths.

If we kill Al-Sadr and make a martyr out of him, The United States has no chance to win in Iraq.

Sadr's newspaper was inciting terrorism. This breaks an international law. He called for his followers to rise up against the coalition - to revolt! The answer on the coalitions part is to act. Inaction, like allowing this cleric to continue spewing his hate towards the coalition is one of the reasons we are fighting this insurgent war over there now.

This minority of radicals has to be stamped out, shut down, silenced.

In addition, let's place the blame where is belongs. Blaming Bremer for this is like blaming Bush for 9/11.

I would really love to debate that statement but I believe that is OFF TOPIC.

So now we are losing at least 12 precious American lives because we treated this situtation incorrectly. Who is to blame? Why that is simple. Who sent the American soliders over there?

Off topic, eh? You didn’t find it “off topic” when other posters discussed Bremer’s actions with regard to this issue. Why is that? Does it only become “off topic” when someone disagrees with your opinion?

Your assertion that this was handled incorrectly is conjecture. But more than that, it’s disturbing. For someone who is so upset by American soldiers dying in Iraq, you seem to have no problem with allowing a radical cleric an open mic to call for their deaths.

I'm beginning to question whether or not the "radicals" are truly the ones who are the minority. I've come to the conclusion that if they were really the minority in Iraq, then those who wanted a different, more democratic lifestyle, would fight them tooth and nail in the streets. Look at what happened in Serbia. We took on Slobodan Milosevic and the people who wanted a better tomorrow turned him out. Could it be that if we held a popular election that our slate of guys would get laughed out?? It might appear that this is off topic, but if we are discussing whether or not Iraq is going to be a democracy, it's legitimate to discuss the direction that the country is headed, or at least headed according to our own dictates and desires.

In a related matter, if Iraq is truly to be an example of democracy, then their electoral process would reflect that. I've come across sources about their so-called "caucus" and it sounds like a loaded deck process by any means, no wonder the clerics want no part of it!



and....


http://www.fair.org/extra/0404/caucuses.html


How many of you just assumed that these "caucuses" as they were called were really a hand-picking game?? I don't know about you, but we were once again lied to(as were the Iraqi people) about this "democratic " process.

Here's what I said regarding that in another thread.



And as far as the caucuses being closed to the public, could that be from fear of Saddam loyalists and extremists infiltrating the caucuses and manipulating them to gain power? Would you consider that a threat to the democratic process?



Funny, but from what I remember, those here who incite violence could be held accountable for the reprocussions. Held responsible. So those who physically carry out the attacks and those, as you admitted, promote this violence are all the same responsible . And that paper wasn't just promting critcism, it promoted murdering American troops, which would not be tolerated in the US.

Intresting how no one seems to recall that old addage... somehing about a pen being mightier than the sword.

Let me try to explain why I thought you were OFF - TOPIC.



The part I was referring to is : this is like blaming Bush for 9/11. Now if you can show me where I or anyone else referred to "blaming Bush for 9/11" in this thread I will apologize to you. If not, then ?



It looks like my "GUESS" is good as anyone elses since we have a full scale uprising and deaths.



No where in my comments did I say I advocated ,"allowing a radical cleric an open mic". My concern was closing the newspapers,WHICH GIVES THEM AN EXCUSE TO UPRISE AND RIOT. We are making a hero or martyr out of this Cleric. We are falling right into his hands by our actions.

What was the proper action.? I don't have any real answers except that it is a losing proposition for us.

And don't get so disturbed just because I disagreed with your opinion. I didn't advocate that you were not entitled to your opinion. I only said you were off-topic pertaining to Bush and 9/11

I agree, but not with your suppositions. This is a prime example of Western thinking. ( Educated? Certainly not about Iraq)
Whatever gave you the idea that Iraqis are illiterate, much less the clerics? Its exactly the kind of thinking that gets us into trouble in the first place, a viewpoint of 'less than' and 'illiterate', basically stupid.

I dont have time for an in depth Iraq history lesson, however Iraqis are generally avid readers. The most sold and traded commodity in Iraqi street markets despite abject poverty during sanctions were books of every genre. Much of this was black market under Saddam, but nonetheless, Iraqis read.

Before 1991, Iraq had an excellent educational system. People from all over the region including women, unveiled and unhindered came to Iraq to study FREE of cost. Their medicine, science and mathematics divisions were world class.

'Prior to the sanctions, Iraq had access to all the money from its oil sales. Iraqis (men and women) were offered free education, including books, through post-graduate school. In 1990, 92% of the country had potable drinking water, roads were paved, women's rights were advancing more rapidly than in any other Arab country (with the possible exception of Lebanon).'
http://www.scn.org/ccpi/WPSROctReport.html

The Sadr paper was little read by accounts before the shutdown. Even so, why do we think the Iraqis cannot decifer between propaganda and reality? After all they are living it day by day. We are not giving them the ability to choose for themselves what is ultimatelty in their own interest. It looks like thought control and creates suspicion of our ultimate motives. With good reason!
I would like any of you to put yourself in their position, and take away the idea that these people are stupid in order to see how they see things as an occupied nation. They have at least 3 times spurned occupations and driven forces out. They know their history, they are neither illiterate, nor nearly as apathetic as most americans are.

To add, our editing of reality which is flagrant :



Then in fact are we 1. a liberating force or a 1984 scenario? ( America never supported Saddam Hussein, America was always on Iraqs side, America never made war on Iraq except to liberate them from evil Saddam Hussein) 2. Do we arrogantly think that Iraqis will accept this new and unrealistically improved remake of their 6000 year history? Or will they only be incited to (true) self rule and burning another chapter of occupation and occupational propaganda?

Some of us here would do a good job to research Iraqs history, especially those that think they are blessing Iraq with some supreme knowledge of how they should be, how their government and lives should be based on a 300 year government with sights on their resources. Its not in any way new to them, we are just a bigger force to deal with these days.

Our dogma and fear of the truths inherent to occupation are going to get us into much further trouble in Iraq. We dont have the stomach for it nor should we have had ever, it was not our place.
Its not as if they are inexperienced with occupational forces. Its WE who are inexperienced and WE who will greatly underestimate their resolve. Of course we can just keep blasting them to pieces and keep considering it ' our right'.

The answer is certainly not to allow the paper to continue fabricating lies and inciting violence against our troops. Where do we draw the line, in an area that unstable and volatile? The lies that paper espoused presented a very real threat. Shut it down, because the people who followed that publication will be angry either way. From their view, the paper was telling the truth, and we didn't want them to hear it, so we shut it down.

Regarding the perceived lack of Democratization of the election process in Iraq...let's not forget that it took a few years to happen in Bosnia and Kosovo too. Initially, the OSCE (Organization for security and cooperation in Europe) managed all election activities. The first few rounds of elections resulted in returning nationalist parties that sparked the war. OSCE then removed candidates it deemed to be ‘Dayton obstructors’, and refused to allow the Serb Radical Party to register. Eventually, the national authorities were given greater and greater control, an election law adopted, and the election process handed over.

So far this is hearsay. I have yet to see a translation of the accusations. Why?

So far ONE false report of an American missle as opposed to a car bomb. This is not a 'continuation'.

Enough to close a newspaper? ARE we not being a bit ingenuous?

Is the Coalition fearful of voices which may proclaim that Iraqis are suffering under US occupation? YES!

Should we, as liberators care, NO.

If we are not liberators, but occupiers, bent on making Iraq to our specifications thereby trounce opposition. Yes.

2+2=4, you do the math, concurrent with the Russian KGB and communist China. Shut down dissent, change historical education, oppose free thought. Allow only propagandist position.
In exchange, civil war and all out revolt.

Could you please back this argument up with some facts? So far, I have seen 2 official reasons given for why the newspaper was closed. The first reason is that the newspaper reported the 50 policemen killed by a suicide bomber were killed by an American missile. The second reason was that the paper said Bremer was following in Saddam’s footsteps.

In neither of these cases did the newspaper call for Sadr’s supporters to revolt against the occupation. In the first case, the paper may have been guilty of publishing conspiracy theories, but this is hardly an incitement to terrorism. If it is, then there must be a lot of nervous American writers out there who have published various conspiracy theories here in the United States about how the U.S. government was actually behind major events in American history, such as the Kennedy assassination. I suppose these people are also responsible for inciting terrorism. The second example comparing Bremer to Saddam is an editorial opinion and again I have seen numerous articles published in the United States and western press expressing the opinion that Iraqis are no better off now than under Saddam and that indeed Bremer is using many of Saddam’s tactics (like closing newspapers) to suppress the Iraqi people.

However, Beladonna, you must have found an example where Sadr used the newspaper to quote your words call “for his followers to rise up against the coalition - to revolt!” Could you please provide a link for this information? Also, I’m curious as to why Bremer didn’t use your example to validate his closing of the newspaper. I would definitely be more sympathetic to Bremer if indeed Sadr had published a direct call for revolt in his newspaper.

Popeye said:


I never said you made a statement blaming Bush for 9/11, popeye. I made "an analogy." Therefore, in my opinion, your knee-jerk rebuttal that my post was off topic is incorrect.

However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I should have placed some kind of divider in the post. That may have helped you understand the sentence you objected to was a separate thought, not specifically directed to you.

I said: ...you seem to have no problem with allowing a radical cleric an open mic to call for their deaths

Popeye said: No where in my comments did I say I advocated ,"allowing a radical cleric an open mic". My concern was closing the newspapers,WHICH GIVES THEM AN EXCUSE TO UPRISE AND RIOT. We are making a hero or martyr out of this Cleric. We are falling right into his hands by our actions.

Well, you continue to say that your concern is in closing the newspaper. You think it is horrible even though you acknowledge that the newspaper was a mouthpiece for Al-Sadr. You said closing it was a bad decision. You not only said it gave them an excuse, you believe closing the newspaper gives these people an advantage over the Coalition or did I misunderstand what you meant by "give them a position"?

Here are your words:



Popeye said: What was the proper action.? I don't have any real answers except that it is a losing proposition for us.

How do you know it's a losing proposition? You have no idea what the final result will be.

Popeye said: And don't get so disturbed just because I disagreed with your opinion. I didn't advocate that you were not entitled to your opinion. I only said you were off-topic pertaining to Bush and 9/11

The problem with that entire statement, is that you didn't indicate a disagreement with my opinion.



...is not a rebuttal or a disagreement. It's a one-line, unconstructive comment meant to inflame.

I too am interested in seeing a translation. In the meantime, I can believe that the coalition lied about the paper, out of sheer meanness and the need for more work, or employ the reasonability test and determine that this paper presented a danger to our forces. It has been suspended for two months, BTW, not forever.

You offered evidence that the Iraqi population is not uneducated and illiterate. I agree. I think the ownership of this newspaper knew exactly what they were doing. This is a country with massive unrest, crime, martial law, on the verge of a civil war. The mass slaughter in Rwanda was instigated by a radio show. It didn't start with "Slaughter all Tutis today!" It began by poking fun at them, then calling them cockroaches, then fabricating Tuti attacks on Hutus in other villages. We all know the end of this story. The line in a wartorn, dangerous environment with massive civil unrest, ethnic division, and unstable new government is not drawn at the point a newspaper says, "insert bomb here". That's too late, and the consequence of such mass violence will not only harm us, it will be much worse for everyone.

Well it looks like I am the bad guy(or course).



My apologizes to you if I INFLAMED you.

in•flame \in-"flam\ vb in•flamed; in•flam•ing 1 : kindle 2 : to excite to excessive or uncontrollable action or feeling; also : intensify 3 : to affect or become affected with inflammation¼q¦ 

I didn't know it would cause "uncontnrollable action or feeling".

But you did agree:



So maybe it wasn't that bad after all?



I don't remember if I had a "knee jerk" when I typed that, but I could be wrong.



That was just A OPINION NOT A FACT. Aren't we entitled to a opinion? Take it easy,stress and anger will affect your health.

*sigh* almost everything I know about this is classified. Here goes.

1. Is this a good example of Democracy?

Not really, but it was necesary. I haven't seen any unclassified translations other than the ones posted, so I can't quote, but from what I've seen, this thing needed to be shut down.

That being said, these newspapers were free distribution, so if the press was doing their job instead of just reporting body counts, there'd be unclass translations out there.

2. Won't this incite the Iraq people more and cause resentment?

I think the answer to that is pretty academic now.

Oh, and blaming Bremer for this mess? I agree. Reasons classified.

If you want to claim its all classified, then why bother posting?

Why are reports on the articles which resulted in the shutting down of this newspaper classified?


Are you saying the press has no interest in wanting to know WHY we have a full scale revolt in Iraq right now? Or possibly our own press is not free either, to say what really caused the event, perhaps nothing, a knee jerk reaction. How would that look? Not good. Might even cause some concern of US handling of Iraq.

This classified crap is what the Bush admin has relied on from the beginning,' its just good and right, but we cant tell you why. 'Trust Us. Dont ask, about 911, about Iraq, about anything.

Sorry but this tactic has blown its credibility and many of us are not buying it any longer.

That sounds about as intelligent as "I don't agree with what you say, so why bother posting"
Lone Wolf has not up to this point, shown that he has any credibility problems in what he posts. He is privileged to be in the loop on some classified information, and I, and I'm sure other open minded people here on AD are glad to hear his point of view.
How easy is seems to be for some of our liberal friends, who claim tolerance, diversity and inclusion, so easily call something 'crap' when it doesn't fit into their little worldview, or wasn't broadcast on NPR.
I only hope you are venting primarily against the Bush Administration, which you have every right to. But to belittle Lone Wolf, who is but a cog in the machine is the tactic of those who used to (and sometimes still) call soldiers 'baby killers'.

If everything that I have read and heard about the paper are true, and I rely heavily on accounts from those in Iraq, then it was indeed necessary to at least temporarily shut the paper down.

And I supposed your post is entirely unbiased, not self serving, and doesn't appeal to emotions? Artemise didn't question Lone's privilege to be in the loop. S/he questioned the necessity to remind us he can't post certain things. Frankly I don't care what your security privileges are. If you're classified and above we are smart enough to realize you can't post inside information, but there's no need to bring it up when you post. If you can't talk about it you can still cite articles like the rest of us "out of the loop" soldier-hating hippies do.

Why? What exactly did you see in these translations that I apparently missed?

I keep hearing comments about how this newspaper was calling on Iraqis to revolt and kill Americans, yet when I ask specifically what the newspaper said on this subject, no one seems to have an answer.

I repeat that I have only heard two explanations given for closing down the newspaper, and both explanations were incredibly lame. The first explanation was that the newspaper printed that 50 Iraqi policemen were killed by an American missile instead of a suicide bomber. The second explanation was that the newspaper compared Bremer to Saddam.

No where have I seen a translated quote from this newspaper calling on Iraqis to revolt and kill occupying forces. If such a quote exists then I would be inclined to agree that Bremer was correct to shut the paper down. If an American newspaper called for the people to revolt against the US Government and kill US Government officials and soldiers, it too would be shutdown.

If there is such a quote please share this information. Otherwise, it is just sleazy propaganda to accuse this newspaper of inciting revolt when there are no facts or statements to back up such a claim.