US Lineup In Iraqi Administration... Out with the old, in with the new

[Kropotkin]

Is that the best you can come up with?

[Ned]

Kropotkin, As I said before, the spinning of certain reporters and networks has become a major issue here in the US since the CNN story broke. FOX and MSNBC are almost daily pointing our just how biased and unreliable the reporting has been.

It is not confined to Iraq. An NBC reporter spoke yesterday of an incident involving Peter Jennings. Apparently the reporter had visited Nicaragua and found out that the Sandanista's were communists. When the story went up to Jennings, he personally rewrote the story to de-emphasize the communism angle and instead to state that the Sandanista's were a popular resistance movement.

[Kropotkin]

Just because there's a major issue doesn't mean that you can find traces of it everywhere. Once up on a time a lot of people saw channels on Mars. Your argumentation is quite weak. We have two texts. The first one is longer, with more details and uses the phrase 'iraqis' instead of 'some iraqis'. From this you claim that the first one is biased. That the other one, with the word some, is some sort of understatment does not seem to cross your mind. Instead you're going for the point of view on the issue that suits you. Your posts often reminds me of the style of "The Watchtower". How you can be so sure that it's a spin (a word that seems as worn out as PC already) is beyond me. If the AP one (or Fox in case they've shortened AP's) had been longer, how do you know that they would not include a list of issues close to, or the same as, the WS?

[GePap]

Ned:

It is not confined to Iraq. An NBC report spoke yesterday of an incident involving Peter Jennings. Apparently the reporter had visited Nicaragua and found out that the Sandanista's were communists. When the story went up to Jennings, he personally rewrote the story to de-emphasize the communism angle and instead to state that the Sandanista's were a popular resistance movement.

Well Ned, Jennings did the right thing, since the Sandinistas WERE NOT communits. But of course, since YOU think they are, this reporter (what are his credentials? does he know the difference between communism and socialism? Did he know anything about Nicaraguan history?) who said "he discorvered they were" must be right and Jennings wrong.... That, in a nutshell, is your problem, Ned.

WP:

" Iraqis have become increasingly frustrated with Garner's operation, saying that his team has failed to fulfill promises to hand out emergency payments, restore basic public services, address a wave of criminal activity and involve resident Iraqis in the planning for a new government. In Baghdad, many neighborhoods still lack electricity and running water, heaps of garbage line the streets and most shops remain closed because merchants are afraid of looters."

AP:

"Some Iraqis have complained bitterly of the slow pace of the U.S. reconstruction efforts and say that such basic services as electricity and running water remain widely unrepaired a month after Saddam Hussein was overthrown."

Do you Ned have ANY reports, form anyone, that show that Iraqis are HAPPY with the pace of reconstruction? That they think the US has done a good job in bringin back basic services, improving the safety of the streets? Getting government people back to thier jobs of trying to run Iraq?

you say: look at this "spin"..well, unless you can find a different 'spin", Okkam's razor would lead me to think this "spin" is the mosta ccurtae out there, even if you don;t like it.

[Ned]

GePap, I think the regime change from DOD to STATE has a lot to do with getting things up and running in Baghdad. This is what is common to both stories. The other part about looting is not in the AP story. The question is why?

Now, I suggest the WP reporter may be spinning. Others here suggest that the WP story simply is more inclusive. I don't have an answer to this precisely because I am not in Baghdad. However, the Jonathan Forman story suggested that reports of looting today are not true. That happened weeks ago, right after the fall of Baghdad when there were no police. According to Forman, those conditions no longer exist. But, even when they did exist, they were no as bad as painted by certain reporters.

[DanS]

Why not continue this discussion in the other thread?

[GePap]

Why do you listen simply to Forman? Becuase you like what he says? You claim embedded reporters are more trustworthy..why? Becuase they are embedded with the military? I mean, just the term causes issue. Were in Baghdad is Mr. froman? what kind of access does he have to the city?

This is the crux of the problem your argument has: you claim that others are spinning because ONE SINGLE SOURCE has told you so, even though, realistically, you can no more know what he is saying is true than what anyone else is saying is true form baghdad, not being there. Objectively, you can no more believe Forman than any other reporter, becuase your ability to check up on what he says is the same as your ability to check what anyone else says. And still you somehow want to claim that Forman must be telling the truth and the dozens of other lying, even , as I pointed out, you have no basis whatsoever to make the judgement.

Which leads me to believe that the only reason that you believe Forman and not anyone else is that you like what he is saying, that it backs up your ideas, and thus it must be true, while those reports that challenge your preset notions of what is going on in Iraq must be false. Unless you can show me a reason why Forman is more believable than the WP reporters, you have NO CASE.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Why not continue this discussion in the other thread?

Ok..moved my previous post to that thread.

[Ned]

GePap, the Sandanista's are not communists? This is an outrageous statement.

Here is a link to an apologist for the Sandanistas. There is no word that can descibe them but communism. Also, remember, they were flooded with Fidel's people after the revolution. Next you will tell me that Fidel Castro is not a communist.

Finally, I suggest that you will tell us that you yourself are not a communist.

http://www.spaef.com/IJED_PUB/v2n2/v2n2_politic.pdf

[Spiffor]

Finally, I suggest that you will tell us that you yourself are not a communist.

[chequita guevara]

FYI, Bodine was the person who heavily interfered with the FBI's invesitgation of the Cole bombing. The FBI's best antiterrorism expert was trying to run the investigation (and was supposed to be) but Bodine got involved and fouled things up, eventually getting the guy sent back to the US where he ended up getting killed in the WTC collapse.

I'm glad to see her going down, but it's too bad the people of Baghdad have to pay for her failure.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Finally, I suggest that you will tell us that you yourself are not a communist.

Spiffor, perhaps you can tell me what the differences between Communism today and socialism if even Communists believe in democracy? In another discussion, for example we found that so-called "rational" Communists no longer believe in "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." It just seems to me that communism and socialism or constantly redefining themselves. It is hard to keep up.

But when I see a "socialist" like Ortega allowing is country to be overrun with Cuban Communists, including turning Nicaragua's educational system over to Castro's teachers, how in the world am I to believe that Ortega is not a Communist?

[Spiffor]

The big problem with communism is that there is a different definition for each communist. While I personally don't believe in the strict appliucation of the "to each according to his needs" (even though I favor a strong social safety net that gives a decent standards of living to everybody who cannot afford it on his own), some people continue to believe in it.

Cuba is a socialist country, like every red country has been until now. More precisely, it is a state-socialist country, i.e the economic power belongs to the state and not the workers within their enterprises.
I have no idea of what the Sandinistas wanted for an economic system, if they wanted a tame capitalism with a humane wealth repartition (social-democracy like in Sweden), or if they wanted to overthrow capitalism as a whole (socialism).
The fact that they embraced Castro's help, in the form of teachers too, certainly shows they were clearly left-wing, and clearly used by the East bloc to weaken the US influence in the area. But they might have accepted Castro's help because no other help was available too (this is the first reason why Castro became part of the East bloc rather than simply being an Antiyanqui ruler in the first place).

And I laughed because you seem to assume GePap is a communist. Such a statement was hilarious IMHO

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Spiffor, perhaps you can tell me what the differences between Communism today and socialism if even Communists believe in democracy? In another discussion, for example we found that so-called "rational" Communists no longer believe in "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." It just seems to me that communism and socialism or constantly redefining themselves. It is hard to keep up.

But when I see a "socialist" like Ortega allowing is country to be overrun with Cuban Communists, including turning Nicaragua's educational system over to Castro's teachers, how in the world am I to believe that Ortega is not a Communist?

Communism is a totalitarian utopian notion: it believs that the basic and most important distinction within mankind is class, which is created by the economic realities of the time. Economics is the basis for politics, and as the economic system progresses, politics change. Communists also believe that, using scientific analysis, you can chart were hisotry has come from, and where t is going In the end, the capitalist free market systems creates the situation making its destruction possible (the Hegelian notion of thesis, antithesis, synthesis) and at this point, the working class can become the only class, ending thus the disctinctions between man, ending politics and bringing true equality to mankind.

Socialism need not have any of these beliefs. for example, communism is utterly aetheistic, but you can have christian socialists. A socialist believes (a muddle explination) that society had obligations to care for its individual members, and that individual members should not be allowed to porfit at the expense of others. They view a situation in which a few are very rich and some very poor as wrong simply becuase then society has failed to meet is obligation (or so they see) to ensure, if ti has the ability to, that all members have a basic level of comfort. The ntion that "my money" should not be sued to feed the poor, cloathe the poor, or give them medical care is a terible one for them.

As for the Sandinistas: who else would they turn for help? The US? US allies in the region, or states tat would be punished by the US is they gave them help?

[orange]

When do we get the "Liberal lineup in US Administration...Out with the old, in with the new" thread?