Iraqi Election

[jhark]

http://www.comw.org/pda/0501br17.html

 

Anyone interested in learning more about the ongoings in the iraqi election then what they hear on CNN --> you will find this interesting

 

Also this aritcle is taken from an independent press publication it is very interesting too

 

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=7128

[summerbronze]

"Thats the point unles you are over there experiencing the election you dont know the truth." -jhark

 

I thought you were hellbent on arguing that there's no way of obtaining any reliable information about any event unless you are personally there - you called me naive for attempting to comment on the iraqi election when I could not know anything about it due to insurmountable bias in the media.

[jhark]

Nowhere did i state that these articles contained the truth about the happenings in iraq.I simply offered them as a different point of view then the ones the mainstream media has been giving us and said that it is interesting to see a different take on things....

 

Also this publication is from the independent press so i do give it more credit since it is not bias towards anyone..aka not owned by corporations

 

but i will state again the only way to know the absolute IS to be there.

 

I just wanted the people getting their info from the big headlines in the paper to be more critical of what they are reading. Also i didnt say it was naive to comment on things, only to belive fully in the media world.

[summerbronze]

I don't understand how you can assert that any source reporting "facts" can be unbiased. And it's not just you, far from it. Most people seem to divide sources into two camps: the biased and - miraculously - unbiased.

 

As long as a human being is writing the article, there is going to be traces of that person's culture, religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, SES, age, etc that are going to influence what they write. Sometimes these traces are extremely subtle. Often good writers proof-read their work, consciously evaluating word choice and phrasing in order to remove as much bias as possible. But it will always be there to some extent, even, perhaps especially, in the independant press.

This does not mean any chance of knowing the "truth" is shot to hell. I just think that a consideration of possible bias is important with respect to all sources.

Edited February 1, 2005 by summerbronze

[jhark]

okaay i will attempt to explain myself even better, im sorry for being so annoying but i think its an important topic. I know there is personal bias on everything im talking about the bias that comes from corporate power in the media...basically all our mainstream media is warped becasue of it (money has a much greater effect then personal views).

 

The independent press association (http://www.indypress.org/index.html) are trying to even out the news out there by producing nonprofit publications who are dedicated to a 'just, open and democratic society' something that isnt possible without media being disconnected from money.

 

Those two articles are from this association therefore i believe there is less bias to them. But please make your own judgement. I think thats probably enough about this now.

[juanpe]

the fact that Iraqi people have elected a government in a "free" "democratic" way shouldnt hide the fact that the Iraqi invasion was an illegal one, that Bush was only pursuing economical profit and that he killed many many innocent people just because of his political and economical interests

[Biggie]

the fact that Iraqi people have elected a government in a "free" "democratic" way shouldnt hide the fact that the Iraqi invasion was an illegal one, that Bush was only pursuing economical profit and that he killed many many innocent people just because of his political and economical interests

That's just your opinion, though. What if he truly believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as the CIA and other intelligence agencies said? There's no doubt that Saddam wanted to attack the US, and probably wouldn't have hesitated to hand them over to some terrorist organisation. In that sense, it was justified.

[juanpe]

the fact that Iraqi people have elected a government in a "free" "democratic" way shouldnt hide the fact that the Iraqi invasion was an illegal one, that Bush was only pursuing economical profit and that he killed many many innocent people just because of his political and economical interests

That's just your opinion, though. What if he truly believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as the CIA and other intelligence agencies said? There's no doubt that Saddam wanted to attack the US, and probably wouldn't have hesitated to hand them over to some terrorist organisation. In that sense, it was justified.

everything was a lie: everybody knew there were not WMD in Iraq, even CIA (in the comission they said they were not sure about that) and the rest of the international intelligences (the British one and the Spanish one have recognized that they were not sure either)...

 

it may be my opinion but it is the opinion of many people based on many reports and studies... so it is not just my opinion, it is a fact

[Biggie]

"it may be my opinion but it is the opinion of many people based on many reports and studies... so it is not just my opinion, it is a fact"

 

Wait, because a lot of people share an opinion it is a fact? In 1400, a lot of people thought the earth was flat, but it wasn't a fact.

 

Not only were there WMDs in Iraq at some point, Saddam Hussein used them. The US, Britain, France and Russia all agreed that Saddam very well could have had weapons of mass destruction in 2003, but disagreed over how to disarm him.

[Bizud]

It is not merely opinion that the invasion was illegal. All use of force (even retaliatory force, fyi) outside of self-defense against an attack is illegal unless authorized by the Security Council. Whatever your opinion of the UN and international law, this is not in dispute.

[Biggie]

The Security Council is a farce. If one of the five permanent countries vetoes action, it is suddenly illegal. Russia would have probably vetoed intervention in Kosovo, so it had to be a NATO operation... Yet, that "illegal" action stopped the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar Albanians, and eventually led to Milosovic's overthrow.

 

If the world only does what the SC authorizes, we hold ourselves hostage to the interests of the five permanent states.

[HoboFactory]

So... what's the outcome??