Heh. This reminds me of one of my favorite “Babylon 5” quotes, by the character Marcus:
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn’t it be much worse if life > were > fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.
Is that your friend’s nephew IR?
I don’t think that’s what you meant, but the same e-mail is posted on the New Republic forum.
Just for clarification, I’m not neccessarily talking about truth as in regards to whether there is a God or whether or not a religion is correct or what not. (Though a god part of how I personally consider truth sometimes involves a relgious aspect, I will not get into that aspect in this thread for the sake of the main point, though if someone wants to talk about it off thread PM I’d be willing to.)
The biggest concern in general I see is how readily people embrace something they hear (in the media, etc.) if it’s in agreement or supports the belief/opinions that they already have.
Research, study and corroberation, indeed. That helps. Yes, truly… as citizens we need to seek truth… our very well being and continued survival as a nation could depend on it.
But when you can not be there in person to witness the truth of what happend, how do you really know? You have to put your trust in other sources.
Where EVERYONE agrees pretty much, or there is strong evidance that is plain to the world and there’s little room or need to twist anything to fit a purpose, it’s not too difficult. (Such as an earthquake or natural disaster happened here and there, or that we can all look back at history and in general say “yes, this war happend”.
But it’s when you get into the details that you can run into conflict. Too many are eager to just believe what they want to believe and embrace it as truth whether it is or not.
I agree that the media is distorted and biased. But there are those on both sides: one side says the media is biased to the right and the other biased to the left. So what is it? Sorry folks, it can’t be both at the same time. So what is the truth there? How do you KNOW?
How do you KNOW that the people you have chosen to listen to are correct? When you have two different sides with their own studies, research, corroberation, witnesses, “independent” journalists… both sides claiming different things which conflict with each other (which happens A LOT) how can you KNOW? How do YOU decide?
I pose that as a serious question. I’d really like to know.
In general, there are two sides. (That stick out above others.) The left, the right… the liberal, the conservative…Most often in this country, connected to the Democrat and the Republican parties, though not always.
For example, I consider myself more conservative, but can’t stand the Republican party. But because I am religious and in general, conservative, there are people who will automatically label me as a Republican and/or discount anything I say. Likewise, there are those on the right who will automatically discount anything from someone who is coming from a more liberalish viewpoint and discount everything they say without considering it at all ever.
It drives me crazy! You’ve got two sides continually blaming each other, fighting. Anything that goes wrong is automatically the fault of the other side. Anything that comes from the other side is automatically classified as a lie or some kind of propaganda. There is such a huge rift, getting wider and more hateful all the time it seems. Surely, there have always been such disagreements, but this is getting to be one of considerable magnatide.
My PERSONAL opinion is that BOTH sides are standing on rather rocky ground. Thus my analogy of standing in a building arguing while the building burns down all around.
There is such an increased focus on all the differences which divide us and push us apart that the things which we might have in common that would bring us together are ignored. In the clamor to be “correct”, to gain power and fame and wealth or with folks in general… to just not be on the “losing/wrong” side, the truth is trampled into the dust.
What is the bit about a house divided can not stand?
Guess some folks are eager to see that happen in person?
I really do fear for the country I love.
huge sigh
Sara (who in reality doesn’t expect anyone to give a 
about what she says, but currently has no other outlet to express and/or vent her thoughts in)
actually Sara - I agree with you (and I’m thinking I’m kinda close to you in political thinking, too, with maybe a little Libertarian thrown in…)
I can’t be a “part” of either party, they both disgust me at times.
And I agree with you about the media - again, I tend not to listen or watch news reports, but try to find information I can check the accuracy of on the internet.
Hmmmm - wanna form a third party??? 
Missy
It takes more than just choosing sides. Besides what I already mentioned, you need to examine your source’s background and where their support comes from, look at their past opinions and observations and compare them to the historical events that were covered, and also their consistency. I’ve been studying these issues for over 30 years now and have had a good deal of time to make these and other comparisons. It’s always an imperfect science, but we have no choice but to pursue it.
In the current case of the Iraq war, the people involved in the build-up to the war acted predictably. It was in keeping with events from their past, and the fact that no WMDs were found proved they were deceitful, and absolved anyone who warned against it.
If you read the Project for the New American Century, (PNAC) a secret document commissioned in 1991 by Bush Administration members, Rumsfeld, Chaney, Wolfowitz, Pearle and George’s brother, Jeb, you’ll see that it was all part of the plan. This document was determined by Project Censored to be the #1 censored story of 2003 shortly after it was discovered and exposed in 2002. The mainstream media was instructed to ignore it because had Americans known about it (and other things) – much of what the Bush Administration has accomplished wouldn’t have been possible. This is just one example of how looking into a person’s history can provide a better understanding of what’s real and what’s just part of their agenda. It also reflects poorly on our so-called “free press.”
I think I understand what you’re asking here, and I share your frustration. This labeling that you’re talking about is the difference between seeking truth and just wanting to win arguments. It’s as if some people just choose a side so they have an argument to defend. I didn’t choose to be on either “side,” I was motivated by what appeared to be the inhumane treatment of people by corporate interests – I’m against corporate exploitation of people, resources and the environment. If that makes me a “leftist,” then I guess that’s what I am.
And then there’s the Karl Marx theory…to which some on this forum seem to subscribe…
:roll:
Really? Tell us about this “Karl Marx theory.” Explain to us what it’s all about so we can understand your assertion.
It doesn’t make me wonder at all. In the late '70s the US-appointed Shah of Iran was deposed by a hostile force and Iran and Iraq were at war. Since the US didn’t like Iran at that time it was only natural to support Iraq.
It’s the same as in WWII where trumpets blew the horrors of the Nazi’s but kept silent about the atrocities of Stalin because he was fighting the same enemy. Afterward, suddenly, the Soviets were the evil ones.
Then there are fascist, social-darwinian, medieval/regressionist, and assorted other theories too. Anybody wanna raise a hand for them?
It’s true: USA has good intentions in Iraq
Happy April Fools Day! 
The Shah was more than just “appointed” – he was installed after the CIA orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran’s democracy in 1953. For 20 years the Shah was what Amnesty International called one of the 20th Century’s most bloodthirsty dictators. The CIA then created a secret police force in Iran, SAVAK, and trained them in torture and suppression techniques that resulted in the murder of thousands of Iranians. If the US had allowed Iran to have it’s democracy the Iranian people would never have had to unite behind the Ayatollah to finally oust the Shah as they did in 1979.
Meanwhile, next door the Iraqis were attempting to develop Democracy there in the mid 50s. Again, the US eventually ended up on the side of those who were against democracy and the US assisted the worst elements of the Ba’ath party to come to power. In 1959 a young Saddam was even hired by the CIA as an assassin in that effort. Saddam failed as an assassin, but was eventually brought to power with the CIA’s help in 1979. Of course the US would support their puppet dictator in its war against the country next door, Iran, which overthrew the dictator the CIA had installed there. The US then propped up and supported Saddam’s regime even while he brutalized his own people. When Saddam stopped cooperating with the US government and threatened US strategic and corporate interests it became necessary to demonize him in the mainstream media and get the US public to back a military action to overthrow him. If Americans understood the history of US complicity with Saddam’s regime they would never have believed the lies about WMDs etc. that have now led to the current mess.
Isn’t it interesting that Saddam, the US puppet dictator in Iraq, admired and idolized Stalin?
I have noticed we argree on an awful lot of things, a lot more agree than not. But a third party of two might not get very far.
Sara
Democracy?
Oh really?
In the mid-1940s Mohammad Mosaddeq, an Iranian statesman and a member of the Majlis, emerged as the leader of the oil nationalization movement. This movement sought to transfer control over the oil industry from foreign-run companies to the Iranian government. Throughout his political career, Mosaddeq consistently advocated three goals: to free Iran of foreign intervention, to ensure that the shah remained a democratic monarch and not a dictator, and to implement social reforms. He believed ending foreign interference was a prerequisite for success in other areas, and he was convinced that as long as the AIOC controlled Iran’s most important natural resource, foreign influence was inevitable. Beginning in 1945 he led a successful campaign to deny the Soviet Union an oil concession in northern Iran. Although he resisted joining political parties, Mosaddeq agreed in 1949 to head the National Front, a coalition of several parties that supported oil nationalization. Within a year the National Front had members in cities and towns throughout the country and had become adept at organizing mass political rallies.
Conservative political groups, backed by the shah, opposed nationalizing the AIOC, partly because they believed such a course would cause irreparable harm to relations with Britain and partly because they distrusted Mosaddeq’s populism. However, as the nationalization movement grew, fewer and fewer politicians openly challenged Mosaddeq on the oil issue. In an effort to forestall nationalization, the shah appointed military officer Ali Razmara as prime minister in 1950. This move increased the scale of demonstrations in favor of nationalization and against a government that increasingly was denounced as a puppet of foreign interests. Razmara was assassinated in 1951 after only a few months in office, and the more militant supporters of nationalization applauded his death. Sensing the popular mood, the Majlis passed a bill nationalizing the AIOC, then took the unprecedented step of appointing Mosaddeq prime minister over the shah’s objections.
In response to these events, Britain enforced a blockade on oil exports from Iran, a move that deprived Iran of foreign exchange. Although Iran had not relied on oil revenues prior to 1951, Mosaddeq’s development budget anticipated this income; its absence severely hindered efforts to stimulate the economy and implement social reforms. Attempts to secure foreign financial assistance proved unsuccessful because most countries and international financial institutions feared offending Britain. The escalating crisis also discouraged private investment inside Iran. Mosaddeq, like many other Iranian political leaders, hoped the United States would intervene to resolve the crisis. Initially, the United States tried to mediate a compromise. By 1952 it had persuaded Britain to accept the principle of oil nationalization. However, the various diplomatic efforts ultimately failed to resolve the dispute.
It seems to me that the unelected Mosaddeq was calling on the United States for help.
This is exactly what infuriated the British government, but the British government would do the same thing if a foreign country controlled its recourses – and so would the US. Nationalization is a sovereign government’s legal right recognized internationally as legitimate. When Mosaddeq announced his intention to do this the British government approached President Truman and asked him to use the CIA, that had a station in Iran, to overthrow Mosaddeq’s government and install the British petroleum industry friendly Shah. Truman replied to him that the US isn’t about overthrowing democracies and sent the Brits packing. When Eisenhower came into the US presidency the Brits returned and asked again. Eisenhower, after having appointed the notorious Dulles brothers in positions of Secretary of State and head of the Pentagon, said “no problem.” This set in motion a trend of overthrowing democracies and installing bloodthirsty dictators in their place all around the world for the next 50 years. The trend continues to this day. Iran was the template that all the others were based on.
The Majlis is a pro-democracy movement in Iran similar to what the US is trying to establish in Iraq – of course an autocratic British-friendly monarch like the Shah is going to object to protect Britsh petrolium corporate interests that he benefits from.
The democratic body in Iraq is supposedly going to select a president just like they did in Iran in 53 when they selected Mosaddeq as prime minister. If this isn’t a sort of democracy that the US can support, then we just fought a war in Iraq for nothing. The US couldn’t find WMDs, and now, according to your standards, there’s no hope for democracy there either.
By the way, IRtradRU?, next time try arguing your position without plagiarizing the MSN Encarta encyclopedia. I’d be more interested in your thoughts and analysis rather than just what you copied and pasted from a corporate website.
ARGGGH!
Sorry, just finished a post, forgot to paste it to another program like I ususally do and it ended up getting sucked in that sticky web of computerish land and lost forever. Out of time to redo it today.
I’ll have to try to come back to it another time.
In the meanwhile, I’ll leave you two to bash it out. BTW, I think there are some bigger sticks out back behind the whistle pile. 
Sara (who was trying to be funny, but probably messed it up somehow)
Does this have to be done again???
That’s cuz you’re selectively quoting your source, and you have omitted the article’s next paragraph, which thoroughly confirms jgilfer’s argument:
…As the Cold War escalated, world superpowers began to interpret political developments around the globe as “wins” or “losses” for the U.S.-led Western bloc and the Soviet-led Eastern bloc. Although Mosaddeq advocated Iranian neutrality in the Cold War conflict, neither side wanted to “lose” Iran. > Consequently, the United States decided to use its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to help overthrow Mosaddeq. > By this time, many conservative politicians in Iran, some senior military officers, and the shah were prepared to work with the CIA to bring down the Mosaddeq government. The coup, carried out in August 1953, failed initially, and the shah was forced to flee the country. After several days of street fighting in Tehrān, however, army officers loyal to the shah gained the upper hand. Mosaddeq was arrested, and the shah returned in triumph.
The technical term for your kind of use of evidence is “intellectual dishonesty”.
Oh, and here’s the link:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567300_6/Iran.html
And as for the “unelected” part, your confusion stems from your ignorance of how parliamentary government works. Mosaddeq was a member of parliament and was elected to office by the other parliamentarians. This is exactly how Tony Blair (and every other british PM) came to office, for example. There is nothing illegitimate about it.
Parlimentary government does not equal “democracy”, especially given that they were putting in place a Muslim-only governement. If he’s APPOINTED by a handful of populists… who got their positions how, exactly, are you aware?
Likewise, it could also be said that Saddam Hussein was “elected”. Gosh, he even got 96% of the vote! Which leaves me wondering how quickly the 4% of the voters fared – bullets to the head or tree shredders?
I was fully aware of the follow-on paragraph and didn’t include it because Jgilder’s post had begun with that period of time - e.g., the 1953 coup. What was the point of repeating what he’d already pointed out.
Democracy under the Ayatollah.
That’s rich.
To wit:
Ayatollah Khomeini had charged the provisional government with the task of drawing up a draft constitution. A step in this direction was taken on March 30 and 31, 1979, when a national referendum was held to determine the kind of political system to be established. Ayatollah Khomeini rejected demands by various political groups and by Ayatollah Shariatmadari that voters be given a wide choice. The only form of government to appear on the ballot was an Islamic republic, and voting was not by secret ballot. The government reported an overwhelming majority of over 98 percent in favor of an Islamic republic. Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran on April 1, 1979.
Democracy?
Looks like the US will have to invade and occupy England next.
Don’t worry, the US isn’t a democracy either – it’s a republic. If the US was a democracy George W would never have been elected.
Since you’re so interested in democracy, and you’re such an expert… let’s look at what Scott Ritter has to say about American-style export democracy: (remember him? He’s the guy who said there were no WMDs in Iraq and the neo-cons called him a “whack-o”… looks like history has absolved him)
Hijacking Democracy in Iraq
By Scott Ritter
AlterNet
March 23, 2005
The official results of the Jan. 30, 2005 elections are in. The Shi’a emerged as the big winners, grabbing 48 percent of the vote, followed by the Kurds who garnered 26 percent, and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s coalition party netting a paltry 13 percent. Behind the scenes political infighting rages as the victorious political parties vie to get their candidates positioned in the new government. On the surface, this looks like the sometimes messy aftermath of democracy; squabbling, rhetoric, and posturing. The Iraqi elections have been embraced almost universally as a great victory for the forces of democracy, not only in Iraq, but throughout the entire Middle East. The fact, however, is that the Iraqi elections weren’t about the free election of a government reflecting the will of the Iraqi people, but the carefully engineered selection of a government that would behave in a manner dictated by the United States. In Iraq, democracy was hijacked by the Americans.
Elections have been used in the past to cover up inherently non-democratic processes. Stalin had elections, as did Hitler. So did Saddam Hussein. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Ba’athist Iraq were not burgeoning democracies, but totalitarian dictatorships. The point here is that elections don’t bring democracy. The roots of any democracy lie in a people united in their desire to govern in accordance with a rule of law that guarantees the rights of all. Such people then create conditions in which elections can certify their desire by selecting those who will govern. This produces democracy. What occurred in Iraq on Jan. 30, 2005 was anything but such an expression of Iraqi national unity.
The Iraqi election was an American-brokered event: the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority set the terms of the election, and its date (not sooner than Dec. 31, 2004, but no later than Jan. 30, 2005) in its ‘Law number 92,’ signed into effect by former CPA chief Paul Bremer on May 31, 2004. The U.S. then had this act certified a week later by the Security Council of the United Nations, which passed resolution 1546, a Chapter VII resolution which carries the weight of international law and which endorsed the U.S.-dictated timetable for elections.
‘Law number 92’ is part of a larger body of Iraqi law, known as the ‘Transitional Administrative Law’, or TAL. The TAL was approved by the Interim Iraqi Governing Council on March 1, 2004; on June 1, the IIGC voted on an Annex to the TAL which certified as law all of the CPA’s laws, regulations, orders and directives, regardless of the TAL. Iraq today is still governed under these conditions, which provide the U.S. occupiers in Iraq de facto control over what happens behind the scenes in the Iraqi Government. Iraq’s ‘democratic’ elections were held under these conditions.
The main objective of the Iraqi election was to elect a national assembly which would then draft a new constitution by August 2005. This new constitution will be brought up to the national assembly for vote on Oct. 15, 2005. If the constitution is adopted, the new parliamentary elections would be held in December 2005 based on this constitution. If the constitution is rejected, then there will be a new national assembly election (a repeat performance of the Jan. 30 vote), and Iraqis will have another year to sort out their constitutional crisis.
Iraq’s future rests on this issue of a new constitution. And herein lies the rub. It is the fervent wish of the Bush administration, and its ally, interim Prime Minister Alawi, that the new National Assembly rubber stamp the interim constitution that is already in place. This constitution contains language which precludes Iraq from becoming an Islamic Republic like Iran, where religious law (i.e., the Shar’ia), versus secular law, reigns supreme. Iraq’s Shi’a majority have rejected this notion, and as such will not support the constitution as it currently exists.
The interim Iraqi constitution was dead on arrival. The Bush administration just hasn’t accepted this fact. It had no chance of survival had the Shi’a won an outright majority of the vote in the Iraqi election. ‘If it [i.e., the percentage of Shi’a votes] had been higher, the [Shi’a] slate would be seen with a lot more trepidation,’ a senior U.S. State Department official said, once the official Iraqi election results were announced on Feb. 14. The problem is, there is good reason to believe that the percentage of votes for the Shi’a was higher – much higher. Well-placed sources in Iraq who were in a position to know have told me that the actual Shi’a vote was 56 percent. American intervention, in the form of a ‘secret vote count’ conducted behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny, produced the Feb. 14 result.
The lowering of the Shi’a vote re-engineered the post-election political landscape in Iraq dramatically. The goal of the U.S., in doing this, is either to guarantee the adoption of the U.S.-drafted interim constitution, or make sure that there are not enough votes to adopt any Shi’a re-write. If the U.S.-drafted Iraqi constitution prevails, the Bush administration would be comfortable with the secular nature of any Iraqi government it produces. If it fails, then the Bush administration would much rather continue to occupy Iraq under the current U.S.-written laws, than allow for the creation of a pro-Iranian theocracy. In any event, the Shi’a stand to lose.
Whether this re-engineering will succeed in the long run has yet to be seen. What is clear, however, is that many senior Shi’a know the real results that occurred on Jan. 30, and will not walk away from what they believe is their rightful destiny when it comes to governing of Iraq: a Shi’a controlled state, operating in accordance with Shar’ia law.
The post-election ‘cooking’ of the results in Iraq all but guarantees that the Shi’a of Iraq will rally together to secure that which they believe is rightfully theirs. This journey of ‘historical self-realization’ may very well ignite the kind of violent backlash among the Shi’a majority in Iraq that the U.S. has avoided to date. It could also complicate whatever strategies the Bush administration may be trying to implement regarding Iraq’s neighbor to the east, Iran. But in any case, the American ‘cooking’ of the Iraqi election is, in the end, a defeat for democracy and the potential of democracy to effect real and meaningful change in the Middle East. The sad fact is that it is not so much that the people of the Middle East are incapable of democracy, but rather the United States is incapable of allowing genuine democracy to exist in the Middle East.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute.