[plschwartz]

came across this in a NYTimes article:
That was one reason Mr. Sadr grabbed for power - and his militiamen grabbed their guns - days after Sunni insurgents stepped up their violence in Falluja, in central Iraq. American officials said last week that Mr. Sadr's move was not wholly unexpected. Indeed, the coalition had provoked him by closing his newspaper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/weekinreview/11cush.html

Do you think that provocation was a good idea?

 

[pyritechips]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/weekinreview/11cush.html

http://news.google.ca/news?q=coalit...paper&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Sorry Paul! That first link only brings you to a sign in page. I tried it myself. The second link is a google search entry and your article is the first result. I'm just trying a direct link work-around.

 

[pyritechips]

Here is a couple of important quotes from the article:

another, larger, better trained and equally ardent Shiite force, the Badr militia, seemed mainly to stand aside. It could now play a profound role in setting Iraq's future.

If the Badrs continue to withhold support from the Mahdi insurrection, or act to block it, they might gain more power under constitutional rule. But their appearance on the battlefield as rebels would greatly complicate the task of restoring order.

And:

Of particular interest is the Badr militia, controlled by the Supreme Council for the Of particular interest is the Badr militia, controlled by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. It has been supported for decades by Iran and is in sympathy with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful cleric, though not controlled by him. It acquiesced in the American invasion to get rid of Mr. Hussein, but has resisted demands that it disarm. Technically, the occupation forces have outlawed it.. It has been supported for decades by Iran and is in sympathy with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful cleric, though not controlled by him. It acquiesced in the American invasion to get rid of Mr. Hussein, but has resisted demands that it disarm. Technically, the occupation forces have outlawed it.

Of course the Americans have outlawed it. Notice the "Of particular interest is the Badr militia, controlled by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. It has been supported for decades by Iran and is in sympathy with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful cleric, though not controlled by him. It acquiesced in the American invasion to get rid of Mr. Hussein, but has resisted demands that it disarm. Technically, the occupation forces have outlawed it.". That spells Islamic Regime, the grand no-no in American plans.

 

[Wino]

Aaah, yes! Democracy the Bush way - you have your freedom, now here is your government. :down:

 

[plschwartz]

PC
Thanks for the rescue. I think the times lets you see an article til the next paper comes out then you need to register.

As life imitates art, my mind keeps returning to that work of art Sgt Bilko (rated in Britian as the all time top sitcom) see http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/p/philsilversshowt_7775245.shtml.

Clinton just jumps up as Bilko and the motor pool ?? the bush inner circle of course. Ritzik just begs to be compared with wolfiwitz. And as Col. Hall Bush. Who then for Doberman?

We start with an absurd premise (as in theatrher of the absurd) that the iraqis will welcome us with open arms strewing as it were rose petals in the americans path
So any opposition has to be compsed of bad guys and malcontents. What possible advantage the ex-Saddamists have now for opposing us so strongly never is explained. Of course it is Marine blood that gives the reality to the Vulcan fantasy.
In the south Sadr is dismissed as a pishika. Forgetting the lessions learned in the 20th Cent, the appeal of a strong nationalistic leader on a disenfranchised lumpenprolitariat, we feel that he could only have marginal appeal.
Chaladi no doubt wants him eliminated on Bremers watch not his and so we provoke him by closing his paper. (Observe that the first of his demands is to get his paper back.)

Too bad that america has stopped being governed by the "best and the brightest" On these pages the averageness of this administration was applauded

 

[LANMaster]

Another baseless attempt to bash the Administration.

Iraq is NOT a Democracy at this point.

I FULLY support the decision to shut down the paper for 60 days.

Too bad all you lefties can do is make it a political sneerfest instead of looking at, and admitting the importance of journalistic responsibility.

I'm very disappointed to see how how far you guys will go with this crap. I thought you were much more intelligent than that.

 

[pyritechips]

baseless attempt to bash

Baseless? Bash? You offer no refutation and again you can't accept any criticism without feeling bashed?

Iraq is NOT a Democracy at this point.

Whether Iraq is a democracy or not is irrelevant in this discussion. Silencing opposition is silencing opposition, under any circumstances.

all you lefties

Still insist on name calling?

make it a political sneerfest instead of looking at, and admitting the importance of journalistic responsibility.

that's all can do, reduce any criticism to immature schoolyard terminology?

disappointed to see how how far you guys will go with this crap. I thought you were much more intelligent than that.

Fall for what? Discussing why the paper was shut down. If all you can think of is "us against them" "good guy against bad guy", then you are far more politically naieve than I thought.

I am much more intelligent, thank you very much. I have stated that the Americans will not allow true democracy because that creates the sticky situation of the Shiite majority voting themselves into power and creating a Theocracy. Professional political analysists from many nations have already outlined this very real scenario, yet you are so superior that you can reject this out of hand as a political sneerfest and not even have the decency and fairness to refute it with facts.

No, all you did is react emotionally in a knee-jerk fashion to a viewpoint opposed to your own. That makes you nothing more than a reactionary, and that is not name calling, that is a definition.

P.S. In the future, please don't include me in "you lefties", if you already have. It is both contempuous and contempible.

 

[WarC]

The news paper promoted violence. It ceased being a news paper and began being propaganda. Theres a difference between news and propaganda.

Al Sadr is like a little muslim Napoleon: He's trying to wrest power now by giving a percentage of people what they want immediately (The US to leave), and would end up enslaving them in a totalitarian Islamic state down the road. The parallels are uncanny. And you could look at Mussolini or Hitler as well. He's using political unrest and the closing of his news paper as a platform for his own visions of power.

Is it silencing opposition? Yup. Silencing dangerous and violent opposition. Just like they did with Saddam.

Theres a little hook thrown in Mr. Sadr's plan, however. 1,200+ Marines in Fallujah, suffering atleast 5 dead, have killed almost 600 Iraqi resistance fighters.

That IS good guy VS bad guy. Remember that the majority of those Islamic and Militia fighters would kill you in a heartbeat just for looking western or being western or being on the internet: just because your open to more than Islam. Anyone who thinks anything else is frankly a dreamer. Keep smoking whatever it is your smoking.

...I know I will.

 

[plschwartz]

War C
To me Fox news is propaganda and not news but for another time.
Our mandate if we had one at all was to get rid of Saddam. Sadr certainly was nor a saddamite.
What mandate do we have to shut his paper. The benificiary if any would be the neo-cons delight Chaladi

 

[LANMaster]

Baseless? Bash? You offer no refutation and again you can't accept any criticism without feeling bashed?

Whether Iraq is a democracy or not is irrelevant in this discussion. Silencing opposition is silencing opposition, under any circumstances.

Still insist on name calling?

that's all can do, reduce any criticism to immature schoolyard terminology?

Fall for what? Discussing why the paper was shut down. If all you can think of is "us against them" "good guy against bad guy", then you are far more politically naieve than I thought.

I am much more intelligent, thank you very much. I have stated that the Americans will not allow true democracy because that creates the sticky situation of the Shiite majority voting themselves into power and creating a Theocracy. Professional political analysists from many nations have already outlined this very real scenario, yet you are so superior that you can reject this out of hand as a political sneerfest and not even have the decency and fairness to refute it with facts.

No, all you did is react emotionally in a knee-jerk fashion to a viewpoint opposed to your own. That makes you nothing more than a reactionary, and that is not name calling, that is a definition.

P.S. In the future, please don't include me in "you lefties", if you already have. It is both contempuous and contempible.

Geez! I had a long response to this by my time ran out and I lost it all.

Jim, my response was directed at the short paragraph that started this thread. My post just happened to follow one of yours. I wasn't calling you or Paul a leftie or unintelligent.

If it seemed like I did, then shame on me for not making the direction of my comments more clear. My comments were more directed at the author of the article (which I could not read in it's entirety because I am not a NYTimes subscriber)

 

[pyritechips]

Sorry LAN:

I was losing track of posts here. I was mad, trying to rescue a hijacked thread and trying to put some very annoying and unworthy members on ignore but the ignore feature wasn't working, but I have it straightened out now.

I think it will take me some time to catch up to your responses; I have several threads to catch up on!

 

[LANMaster]

Hi Jim, No apology from you necessary. I looked back and I was letting my passion get the best of me as well.

I have nobody on ignore.

It's tough to keep up with all the threads for me as well.

Sometimes I'll justr skim my way through the posts and gloss over the cut & Paste jobs. Unfortunately sometimes I miss something important and end up taking someone out of context, or misinterpreting sarcasm for seriousness.

 

[pyritechips]

Hello again:

I put members on ignore that post overly large and/or irrelevant posts. It eliminates the difficulty of picking the smaller, worthy posts from out of the crap. It just makes for easier reading.

Despie Mr Mulder's attempt to get members to post in a civilized and worthy manner there are still too many members that have nothing to say except to attack others.

I will use my ignore button with reckless abandon! If there are only a handful of members worth listening to then that's all I will be able to see!

Just one word of advice for all good members here: Do not feed the trolls!

 

[WarC]

So much for civilized debate then, eh Pyrite? Thats the way to know your right: ignore everyone with a differing opinion!!