Iraq at civil war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

But, if he was elected by the majority of voters, who we are assuming to be informed voters, then why would you say he isn't supporting the democratic process?

HOZ will try to make you believe otherwise, but I think we can assume that the voters were not informed. How informed would you be living in a war zone where electricity, potable water, sewage and employment were not in ample supply? I suspect you would be living in a vacuum and would have very little information about what was going on except in your own little corner of the city you live in. Based on information from journalists on the ground in Iraq there is not much information movement in that country. The information that people got was from their local imam. The church told them what to do. I would say that is as far from informed as you can get.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

How informed would you be living in a war zone where electricity, potable water, sewage and employment were not in ample supply? I suspect you would be living in a vacuum and would have very little information about what was going on except in your own little corner of the city you live in.

Well, it isn't like they are utterly without the internet.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

This is the blog of a 24 year old Iraqi woman living in Bagdad. I believe she has been nominated for an award for non-fiction. I found it well written, and a real window into the situation on the ground for a typical Iraqi citizen. I am not saying that Lanny is wrong, just that there is information available to these people, that you might not otherwise expect.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The term Communism is an extension of the word commune.This word seems to come from communicate or share. So sharing in practise is evil?
There are many types of communes and some are very succesful. From what I understand the Hutterites live in communes and seem succestul. Are they evil?

The Commuism you are referring to got taken over by men out for personal power. This can also happen under capitalism.

Well, I believe that peopel are individuals at heart, so forcing them to conform to a commune in communism is against himan nature. it only took 90 million odd deaths to figure it out. Yes, I call 90 million odd deaths evil.
For communism to work, everyone has to agree to it and not everyone will ever agree on anything, especially a system that limits individual freedoms and liberties. Doesn't matter 'who is running it'.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well, I believe that peopel are individuals at heart, so forcing them to conform to a commune in communism is against himan nature. it only took 90 million odd deaths to figure it out. Yes, I call 90 million odd deaths evil.
For communism to work, everyone has to agree to it and not everyone will ever agree on anything, especially a system that limits individual freedoms and liberties. Doesn't matter 'who is running it'.

I agree, "forcing them to conform to a commune in communism is against human nature". Forcing people in any system is mostly wrong. What you're talking about is a communist dictatorship, I don't like dictatorships of any form.

Communism can be democratic and in certain circumstances can work. Communism it
self is not evil.

Capitalism or communism, if taken to extreme are equally bad.

[White Doors]

Capitalism is an economic system only. Communism is a political system which necesitates a market system that is not free market in nature, but state controlled in order to dispurse funds to it's citizens.

Communism is by definition, extreme.

[White Doors]

Communism is anti-demiocratic at heart. Heavy state intervention in a capitalist market system is called socialism.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Capitalism is an economic system only. Communism is a political system which necesitates a market system that is not free market in nature, but state controlled in order to dispurse funds to it's citizens.

Communism is by definition, extreme.

You should read up on communism before making assertions about it. It proves that you know utterly nothing about communism.

You are talking about Bolshevism and Maoism, not communism.

[oldschoolcalgary]

in theory, communism sounds great, unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the worse parts of our own nature...in the communism of Marx, the state structure was supposed to melt away.

But those in power do not give it up easily if at all...and that was one of the many issues - Communism wasn't all about equality or a classless society...the societal hierarchy was as entrenched as it was during the days of the czar...

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Capitalism is an economic system only. Communism is a political system which necesitates a market system that is not free market in nature, but state controlled in order to dispurse funds to it's citizens.

Communism is by definition, extreme.

Well, we both have different definitions of what communism is, so further arguement is pointless. I understand where you are coming from, but you've obviously missed my point of view.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well, I believe that peopel are individuals at heart, so forcing them to conform to a commune in communism is against himan nature. it only took 90 million odd deaths to figure it out. Yes, I call 90 million odd deaths evil.
For communism to work, everyone has to agree to it and not everyone will ever agree on anything, especially a system that limits individual freedoms and liberties. Doesn't matter 'who is running it'.

That is actually incorrect. Humans are social animals and have been communists for all of history. That is what has made man a successful species. We (being man) are hunters and gatherers. Being one or the other would not lead to the same level of success as working together. Man learned this very early in his development, and this allowed a vastly inferior animal to climb to the top of the food chain. Our ability to work together in a communist setting gave man the opportunity to master his environment. Man is instinctively a communist, because without the commune we would not have survived.

With the advent of monetary systems, the downfall of barter systems, and the materialistic bend that has been bred into our species (we all like shiny things, the female of the animal especially) the communist instinct has been harnessed back a bit, but I still think it is very evident. After all, the majority of humans live in cities, essentially large communes, where we allow our specialized skills to be put to use to support the whole of the society. We no longer barter our services directly for other goods and services, but instead do so for a wage and use that money to purchase the goods and services we need to sustain ourselves. We are still very much a social animal and still live in a commune setting. We just use different terms to make ourselves believe differently. If we were not that way, we would be living in the wide open spaces that are so prevalent on earth and doing our own thing. But we have this need and this desire to be around other human animals. That's what makes us stay together. I know it certainly isn't for the popcorn at the movie theatre!

I think some are getting hung up on the term and the contradiction that the ideology brings to mind. I say look at the model, not the implementation. Jesus, you can say democracy is great and then look at the United States version of it and want to puke. The concept is great, the implementation sucks. Goes both for communism in Russia, democracy in America, etc.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That is actually incorrect. Humans are social animals and have been communists for all of history.....

I more or less agree with you, but I would emphasize the point that the definitions have changed a little and implementation is the most important aspect of any politcal/economic sytem.

Communism is not intrinsically evil, nor is capitalist democracy intrinically a good thing - especially considering that power is a buyable and sellable commodity.

And just to delve futher into what you were saying about natural human social orders.... there is nothing natural about democracy. And in fact, when you look at the history of civilization, democracy has barely existed for more than a blink of an eye, and only in a select few regions. Even in Modern Western Civilzation, democracy is still relatively new.

It's foolish to think we can go willy nilly, and spread democracy everywhere - especially considering we have not worked out all the wrinkles yet ourselves. Of course, I don't actually believe the intent of occupying Iraq was to build viable and lasting democracy. It's about control, pure and simple.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's foolish to think we can go willy nilly, and spread democracy everywhere - especially considering we have not worked out all the wrinkles yet ourselves. Of course, I don't actually believe the intent of occupying Iraq was to build viable and lasting democracy. It's about control, pure and simple.

i believe it's boot chaos, pure and simple.

many are predicting OPEC to gain the control of the lion's share of iraq's oil.

for anyone that atually thinks secularism is part of ameica's plan for iraq, stop and think - who are america's 'friends' in the region and who are the enemies?

by and large, the only theocratic enemy is iran.

the bulk of the gulf states are still ruled by sharia, islamic law, though its enforcement is quite lax in more than one of them.

it's arab secularism that is america's enemy in the middle east.

the 'old guard' monarchies are in place by divine right, tracing their roots (quite legitimately) to mohammad himself. these guys are american leadership's best pals, because they control the bulk of islamic wealth worldwide, and when new mosques are built, it is the wahabists that construct them and put their radical bozos in place - even in europe, especially in europe!

this keeps religious strife high and corporatizes suicide bombings and the teaching of a jihad culture.

keep swiping that citibank card, america! because, YOU'RE HELPING!!!!!

saddam hussein was approaching a moral high ground position of leadership among the entire arab world, until the richer religious countries (saudi arabia, kuwait, etc.) defaulted on the money they had promised to iraq to be their proxy in their holy war against iran.

<by the way, for anyone that thinks, really, that arabs and muslims are committing their lives against israel, take a good long look at the iran-iraq war.>

so as iraq slips into iran-lite, ask yourself - does keeping the arab world dark, dim, and divided really sound like a foreign policy failure to you?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

i believe it's boot chaos, pure and simple.

What is boot chaos? I looked it up but the only thing I could find was a story about selling stuff out of the trunk of your car in England without a license, and how chaos might ensue. I don't think that's what you mean.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What is boot chaos? I looked it up but the only thing I could find was a story about selling stuff out of the trunk of your car in England without a license, and how chaos might ensue. I don't think that's what you mean.

sorry, aboot chaos.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, and people in this country voted for Bush... TWICE.

It is obvious that your understanding of democracy is on the elementary level. Casting a vote is but a small part of democracy. Democracy requires that a voter understand the ramifications of their vote and assume the responsibility for that vote. Saying otherwise is just plain stupid. Seriously, one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I'm talking signature file dumb. How can a democracy work if the people do not understand the function, do not comprehend the issues and do not have the ability to provide oversight? How can it work if these are no checks and balances? It can't. Without the understanding of the system the people cannot form the structures to support their actions.

Jesus, do you honestly think that one day someone decided that they needed a new form of government and looked at his compatriots and said "let's vote", and that worked? Sorry bonehead, but before people cast that vote they had to know what they were voting for. They had to know what the division or responsibility was, what the oversight was, and what mechanisms of accountablity there were for those assuming power. THAT is human nature, and you can't fight that. The fact is that Iraqis never had a chance to define these structures. They were rushed to the polls to vote for people they had no information about. That just doesn't work.

BTW... I didn't think you were in Canada. A lot of NDP voters in Japan?



Common sense. A country that was subject to endless propaganda about the evils of a system are likely not going to be schooled in the functions of that system. Americans all believe that Communism was evil, yet they know nothing of how the system worked, and this is a country that the citiznry are supposedly highly educated and open to ideas (not even close to being true). Iraqis were not going to understand the concepts of democracy and how it functions just because they all of a sudden get to vote. Plus, the country was just coming off the heels of being bombed back to the stone age (in effect) and many of the regions did not have the infrastructure for daily life. You don't think that situation is going to make getting the word out on the issues a little next to impossible? The people are locked in aurvival mode, a political campaign is not going to be front and center. Iraqis are only going to do what they have been doing for generations, and do what they're told.



Nice links, but not a single one of them said a damn thing about Iraqi's know what they were voting on. Every one of these links speaks about voting irrgularities and how they were dismissed (which conflicts greatly with other reports as posted). There has been nothing to indicate that Iraqis had a clue what they were doing when they went to the polls. All the talk has been focused on nothing but sectarian issues that have been amplified by the vote itself. The people voted for who their imam told them to vote for and they did their duty. Iraq went from a secular country where religion played little role in the governance of the country to one where religion will prevent an effective government from being formed. THAT'S democracy to you?

Again, do yourself a favor and learn the meaning of the word illiberal and how it applies to democracy. Everything you have described as great success is a shining example of an illiberal democracy, and as history has shown, illiberal democracies are not democracies at all, and always lead to strife.

Glad to see that you have given up the chase with this invalid election bit. That was what the links were for. I will take that as a nod that the election was valid. The experts agree with me.

Sorry bonehead, but before people cast that vote they had to know what they were voting for.

Your thinking on democracy is so subjective and silly. Your narrow definition of what make a democracy simply knocks every country into your "illiberal" democracy. Find some link showing that all the Iraqis didn't know what they were voting for and that all Canadians did, please. Heck, find a link showing that 100 percent of ANY county's voters knew or did not know what they were voting for.

Maybe we should institute an essay question before voting? Please state in 3 pages or less why you know what you are voting for.

Or should we make it more simple?

#1: Did an imam, church, stray dog, leftwingnut and/or warmongering-neo-con group tell you how to vote? A Yes answer will invalidate your vote.

#2: Do you have access to all 3 of these? Internet, TV(with more than one channel), and newspaper. A no answer will invalidate your vote.

#3: Do you understand the function, comprehend the issues and have the ability to provide oversight?

Will you be on the marking board Lanny? Since you and others here have elected themselves the high and mighty overseers of what makes a democracy.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Capitalism or communism, if taken to extreme are equally bad.

Capitalism taken to extreme is bad? Care to elaborate?

Capitalism is all about voluntary exchange (of just property claims). Capitalism taken to "extreme" would mean that all exchanges being made are purely voluntary, ie. no one is forced to make a transaction/or to give up on a transaction. How is that bad?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That is actually incorrect. Humans are social animals and have been communists for all of history. That is what has made man a successful species. We (being man) are hunters and gatherers. Being one or the other would not lead to the same level of success as working together. Man learned this very early in his development, and this allowed a vastly inferior animal to climb to the top of the food chain. Our ability to work together in a communist setting gave man the opportunity to master his environment.

Communism is not about "being able to work together." Communism is when "everyone owns everything" in other words property claims are not specified. However, someone always must make a decision as to how to use a certain good (thing, resource etc.) What follows is conflict. Everyone owns everything, but only some are making decisions. You as a hunter kill an animal and someone else comes along and takes it from you because "the animal belongs to everyone."

Communism is not about cooperation, it is about social conflict due to lack of clear and just propery claims.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Communism is anti-demiocratic at heart.

So is capitalism. Which is a good thing.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Capitalism taken to extreme is bad? Care to elaborate?

Capitalism is all about voluntary exchange (of just property claims). Capitalism taken to "extreme" would mean that all exchanges being made are purely voluntary, ie. no one is forced to make a transaction/or to give up on a transaction. How is that bad?

The idea of capitalism is to aquire money, goods, property, power and crumpets. When someone is so successful that they aquire a monopoly there is no longer competition and there is no longer a "purely voluntary" exchange.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Communism is not about "being able to work together." Communism is when "everyone owns everything" in other words property claims are not specified. However, someone always must make a decision as to how to use a certain good (thing, resource etc.) What follows is conflict. Everyone owns everything, but only some are making decisions. You as a hunter kill an animal and someone else comes along and takes it from you because "the animal belongs to everyone."

Communism is not about cooperation, it is about social conflict due to lack of clear and just propery claims.

Interesting comment, not one that I completely disagree with from a political ideology angle. But the concept of "property claims" is a pretty new one to the human animal and not thought of until man started to develop societies and power bases. We might as well wipe out the previous 50,000 years of human history, living as commune-ists (I will modify the word so you'll crying about the political ideology) to protect, nurture and propagate the species.

What you fail to acknowledge is the acceptance level of the actions you suggest. If the "individual" makes an action that goes against the general need of the commune it was very likely the commune would reject that individual all together, leaving the individual to fend for himself. In your example, the hunter decides to retain the kill for himself. Fine, the rest of commune rejects that individual, forcint him to leave and fend for himself. He does not get the benefit of the the work the gathers provide (other food stuffs, a place to sleep, convenient water, etc.). He does not get the benefit that the care givers provide (in the event of sickness or injury). He does not get the benefit of the security of the group. Individuals were easy pickings for large predators. The commune was the safe place to be. It still is. That is why the majority of the world's population of humans are concentrated in cities.

I'm not going to argue that people have become materialistic and believe their are individualistic because of these desires. I will argue that people are not individuals and instinctively recognize that they need to live in some form of commune setting to survive. We are reliant on each other to provide things we can't provide for ourselves. That's human nature.

BTW, I would really like to know what you do and where you live. Based on your "ideology" you should be living in a remote cabin someplace, living off of the land, selling your excess crops or skins to the higest bidder on a black market. Doing otherwise just wouldn't seem right.