Bush is Right

[Guest eureka]

You should read the rest of the paragraph about my opinion of the SCC, August.

For critical thinking, you may not be aware of the demographic shift in what were once safe Democrat states. You may not, therefore, understand how I applied that to my estimate of party fortunes.

You may not be aware of the political or philosophical shift of the Democrat party over the past decade and, therefore, not understand how that has alienated from a substantial part of their base: a base that, in significant numbers voted Republican in the last election.

Those are the things that enter into critical thinking and also into analytical thinking.

Revolution! It is inevitable in the US. It will not be a violent one but there will be a reaction against a system that has prodiced military adventures and social disenfranchisement.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Only a storm of hot passion can turn the destinies of peoples, and he alone can arouse passion who bears it within himself.

It alone gives its chosen one the words which like hammer blows can open the gates to the heart of a people.

But the man whom passion fails and whose lips are sealed - he has not been chosen by heaven to proclaim its will...

In general the art of all truly great national leaders at all times consists among other things primarily in not dividing the attention of a people, but in concentrating it upon a single foe. The more unified the application of a people's will to fight, the greater will be the magnetic attraction of a movement and the mightier will be the impetus of the thrust. It belongs to the genius of a great leader to make even adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to a single category, because in weak and uncertain characters the knowledge of having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of doubt in their own right.

Once the wavering mass sees itself in a struggle against too many enemies, objectivity will put in an appearance, throwing open the question whether all others are really wrong and only their own people or their own movement are in the right.

And this brings about the first paralysis of their own power. Hence a multiplicity of different adversaries must always be combined so that in the eyes of the masses of one's own supporters the struggle is directed against only one enemy. This strengthens their faith in their own right and enhances their bitterness against those who attack it...

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process neccesary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like the poster, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction.

The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses...

Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted for the broad mass, the following rule results: - it is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered...

-from Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler

********************************

Considering events of the last few years....

[PocketRocket]

AUGUST: Sorry it took so long to reply. I simply haven't looked into this thread in a while.....

I don't think you give yourself, or the rest of Canada, enough credit. What is maturity in a nation???

At the federal level, we have in effect a one-party state. That shows immaturity.

I am assuming you say this because the Liberals are really the only major party right now. But the flipside to your statement is the fact that they became that way by the will of the people. That's you and me. The PC's (remember them???) were a major force since Canada's birth, until they were voted into obscurity that is.

But as another sign of maturity, new parties are evolving out of the old, and are free to do so. No one is forcing a one-party system on us. We are free to vote the liberals out any election we choose.

If we take an individual person as an analogy for a nation, then what I would describe as "maturity" would be someone who is calm, reasonable, generous, helpful and humble.

The analogy is meaningless. The whole point of society is to be able to live with others.

We in Canada have not managed to do that in a stable way. Our federal parliament is a good indication.

Parliament. Their internal bickering is simply a result of the adversarial party system.

But as a nation, we generally get along pretty well with others.

As a society we seem to do pretty well, too.

So what's your point here???

Not someone boastful, loud or threatening. Not someone who thinks he/she is God's gift to all, and is determined to make over others. IMHO, Canada fits quite nicely into the first group.

That is entirely your perception, and it says much more about you than it does about the US.

Where did I mention the US??? You assumed my statement was a reference to the USA. So I ask you, this says more about who???

[August1991]

Where did I mention the US??? You assumed my statement was a reference to the USA. So I ask you, this says more about who???

Well, we are in the US politics section and the title of the thread is "Bush is Right" but I am sorry if I misconstrued your opinions.

Not someone boastful, loud or threatening. Not someone who thinks he/she is God's gift to all, and is determined to make over others.

Who were you referring to?

I am assuming you say this because the Liberals are really the only major party right now. But the flipside to your statement is the fact that they became that way by the will of the people. That's you and me.

I am willing to believe that participants in free markets ultimately respond to other dealers. Democratic political markets are not the same.

I am just observing that in Canada, at the federal level, IMO, we haven't successfuly created a viable democracy.

The US, on the other hand, has been a successful democracy at least since 1865.

[caesar]

The US, on the other hand, has been a successful democracy at least since 1865.

As I have said before; even the USA does not believe they are more democratic than Canada. Their complaint is that Canada is TOO democratic and allows too many human rights.

[PocketRocket]

Where did I mention the US??? You assumed my statement was a reference to the USA. So I ask you, this says more about who???

Well, we are in the US politics section and the title of the thread is "Bush is Right" but I am sorry if I misconstrued your opinions.

Hey, no problem. We're all friends here, even if it does sometimes get a bit heated.

Not someone boastful, loud or threatening. Not someone who thinks he/she is God's gift to all, and is determined to make over others.

Who were you referring to?

Actually, it was sort of hypothetical, but all through history many empirical nations have fit the description. England, Spain, Greece, France, USSR, Nazi Germany, even Attila and his Merry Band of Huns, and so many more.

But now that you mention it, the USA does sort of fit the description.

Funny how that never occured to me before

I am assuming you say this because the Liberals are really the only major party right now. But the flipside to your statement is the fact that they became that way by the will of the people. That's you and me.

I am willing to believe that participants in free markets ultimately respond to other dealers. Democratic political markets are not the same.

Well, you mentioned Dief and Mulrony as the only Consevative PM's in the past many decades. If they are an example, it's no wonder Canada keeps looking left. It is, in fact, my firm belief that Mulrony bears sole responsibility for the demise of the PC's.

I am just observing that in Canada, at the federal level, IMO, we haven't successfuly created a viable democracy.

"Democracy is a lousy system of government, but it's the best we've come up with so far...." Robert A Heinlein. (I like that line).

But really, who HAS created such a viable system??? Canada's seems to work as well as anyone else's. But if you look at it historically, the whole idea of democracy is still in it's infancy. Give it another thousand years or so to develop, then we'll talk.

The US, on the other hand, has been a successful democracy at least since 1865. 

As I have said before; even the USA does not believe they are more democratic than Canada.  Their complaint is that Canada is TOO democratic and allows too many human rights.

Geez, now I don't know WHO to believe. I'm so confused....

[August1991]

"Democracy is a lousy system of government, but it's the best we've come up with so far...." Robert A Heinlein. (I like that line).

Your appreciation is well-deserved given that Heinlein stole it from Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

USSR, Nazi Germany, even Attila and his Merry Band of Huns, and so many more. But now that you mention it, the USA does sort of fit the description. Funny how that never occured to me before

Since you confuse Heinlein and Churchill, I'm not surprised that you'd confuse Nazi Germany and the US.

Well, you mentioned Dief and Mulrony as the only Consevative PM's in the past many decades. If they are an example, it's no wonder Canada keeps looking left. It is, in fact, my firm belief that Mulrony bears sole responsibility for the demise of the PC's.

Diefenbaker and Mulroney were both elected by default. The Liberals gave up the ghost.

Mulroney is the more surprising of the two because he actually tried to do something for Canada (and got re-elected in the process). Specifically, he reformed our consumption tax (GST), he negotiated free trade, he attempted to change UIC and almost got Quebec to sign on to the constitution.

But that deserves a thread in the Canadian section.

----

A viable democracy is when you have a cliff-hanger at each election and politicians are forced to live with the results. Partisan politics is usually good for democracy.

The only possible unhealthy sign I see in the US is the creation of the Special Prosecutor office. Clinton spent his two terms under constant investigation and was impeached for purely partisan reasons.

Bush has been treated no differently from Reagan or Johnson.

[caesar]

Mulroney is the more surprising of the two because he actually tried to do something for Canada (and got re-elected in the process). Specifically, he reformed our consumption tax (GST), he negotiated free trade, he attempted to change UIC and almost got Quebec to sign on to the constitution.

Those are the dumb acts that got him booted out and nearly destroyed the Conservatives. He did Canada no favour with his Free Trade agreement and certainly won no friends (other than accountants) with his GST.

[sulla]

The US, on the other hand, has been a successful democracy at least since 1865.

Certainly, if your template is Athenian democracy which also restricted suffrage to the minority of its population.

[PocketRocket]

 

"Democracy is a lousy system of government, but it's the best we've come up with so far...." Robert A Heinlein. (I like that line).

Your appreciation is well-deserved given that Heinlein stole it from Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

I was not aware of this quote, but I appreciate learning of it. Thank you kindly.

My favorite Churchill quote (upon having a woman tell him he was drunk) is "And you, Madam, are ugly, but in the morning, I shall be sober".

Since you confuse Heinlein and Churchill, I'm not surprised that you'd confuse Nazi Germany and the US.

Let's see now, in that previous post, you assumed that I was referring to the USA when I mentioned "arrogance".

When asked who I was referring to, I mentioned Nazi Germany, among MANY others.

Now you try to put words in my mouth by saying I am comparing/confusing the two, when in fact YOU are the one who dragged the USA into my earlier statement.

Sorry, AUGUST, I ain't biting. Find another fish to try reel in.

As for Heinlein and Churchill, both excellent gentlemen. I would have loved nothing more than to have had the priviledge to have a conversation with either of them.

Diefenbaker and Mulroney were both elected by default.  The Liberals gave up the ghost.

It seems the Progressive Conservative Party has given up the ghost as well, but on a far more permanent level.

A viable democracy is when you have a cliff-hanger at each election and politicians are forced to live with the results.  Partisan politics is usually good for democracy.

So by your definition, if the general population is not split down the middle at the polls, then that means the "democratic" system they live with is not viable???

I don't buy that definition.

Besides, we had a cliff hanger during our last national election, and guess what??? The Liberals lost. They became merely a minority goverment, which is always a mixed blessing in itself. More checks and balances, but it takes a lot longer to get anything done.

Still, it's better than having the Lib's as a majority...

The only possible unhealthy sign I see in the US is the creation of the Special Prosecutor office.  Clinton spent his two terms under constant investigation and was impeached for purely partisan reasons.

The Patriot Act is pretty scary. I would hardly call it a healthy sign.

[daniel]

If the Iraq invasion was multiple-choice type test, Bush passed only on the third attempt:

Question #1:

What is the reason for invading Iraq?

a) the Iraqi government was involved with 911;

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;

c) Iraq needed a regime change;

d) all of the above;

e) none of the above.

Well, he answered a) and and got those wrong. You know what they say about the hundred monkeys with 100 typewriters.

[moderateamericain]

If the Iraq invasion was multiple-choice type test, Bush passed only on the third attempt:

Question #1:

What is the reason for invading Iraq?

a) the Iraqi government was involved with 911;

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;

c) Iraq needed a regime change;

d) all of the above;

e) none of the above.

Well, he answered a) and and got those wrong. You know what they say about the hundred monkeys with 100 typewriters.

always intresting to see what other countries feel about the united states. I think what maybe many of you dont see is that we are alot more divided philosophically than you think. there are many advocacy groups out there then the Republican and Democrats. I trully love how some of you who from past post that i have read, have never lived in the united states but yet can snap up are culture at a whim. I dislike your presumptive nature, and snap judgments about all people in this country. But to each his own, i wont sit back and judge canada based on my time in Montreal and Toronto, because i know that there are other provinces that i havent experienced. I voted for Bush, and i would not allow a fascist government to take control of are country without giving my life first.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

He did Canada no favour with his Free Trade agreement and certainly won no friends (other than accountants) with his GST.

Actually, Mulroney was reelected to a majority government after the issue of the free trade agreement was proposed. If you recall, it was the major issue of the 1988 election and John Turner said that he would scrap it should Canadians elect him. Although I have little doubt that the GST contributed to the 1993 purge, I would imagine that Chrétien won few friends by reneging on his promise to eliminate it, and yet he was re-elected several times. The reason why Mulroney was able to get a federal majority was because he was the first Conservative in modern history who tried to appeal to Quebecers. His majority governments rode on the fact that for the first time a substantial number of Quebec ridings were sending PC delegates to Parliament. Mulroney reversed the economic stagnation that characterized the Trudeau years but nonetheless failed miserably at curbing the massive deficits he had criticized the previous administration for. The failure of the Charlottetown Accord caused him to lose support not only in Quebec but also in traditional conservative bases like British Columbia and Alberta, where the Accord was strongly opposed. This combined with the 1992 recession sealed the fate of the Progressive Conservatives. Today, now that the passions of the early-1990's have died down, Mulroney is increasingly respected as a sort of, "elder statesman." I think that this is because it is recognized that Mulroney's two majority governments, a spectacular feat for a Conservative, were due to his own aptitude, conviction, and charmisa.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

What is the reason for invading Iraq?

a) the Iraqi government was involved with 911;

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;

Although it seems now that Saddam abandoned his weapons program at some point in time after 1995, keep in mind that there was a lot of evidence against this in 2002, even discounting CIA intelligence. During the UNSCOM operation (1991-1998), Saddam did virtually everything in his power to halt the inspections, from refusing the UN entrance into certain plants to blowing up factories shortly before an inspection. In 1998 Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, causing Clinton to declare that Saddam had "abused his last chance." He then signed the Iraqi Liberatin Act, effectively making the removal of Saddam a policy of the United States government. Prominent UNSCOM inpsectors such as Richard Butler, the leader of UNSCOM in its final years, believed that Saddam, with the UN now gone, was restarting his chemical and biological weapons programs. This opinion was echoed by many other inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, who said that Iraq's recent non-cooperation justified the removal of Saddam. Between 1998 and 2002, Saddam was completely unsupervised. During this period numerous Iraqi defectors, many of who were not part of any partisan organization, claimed that Saddam was creating weapons of mass destruction. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordon both told the American military shortly before the war that they believed the same thing. When the UNMOVIC inspectors arrived in Iraq in 2002, they noted that Iraq could not account for 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, 6,000 gallons of anthrax, and 5,000 gallons of botulinum. ElBaradei noted that Iraq “should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs ... (but) only a few new such documents have come to light so far ...” It was also discovered that Saddam threatened to murder the families of those scientists who told UNMOVIC too much. Blix, although he never found any direct evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction, did declare that, “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament which was demanded of it.”

I don't think that the Bush administration ever said that Saddam was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. It is true, however, that it was rather disingenuously implied that he was. These suspicions were based on several meetings between Al-Qaeda and Iraqi officials that were later confirmed by the 9-11 commission, as well as Saddam's comment that the United States had deserved the attacks. Regardless, that Iraq was among the world's largest sponsors of international terrorism is not in question. Since 1991, Iraq has actively supported terrorist movements against Israel, Turkey, and Iran (Israel and Turkey being key American allies in the Middle East), has attempted to assassinate former American president George HW Bush, and has knowingly sheltered the anti-American terrorists Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Abbas, and especially Abu Nidal, who was at the time one of the world’s most wanted terrorists. After the September 11th attacks, Vladimir Putin acquired intelligence that indicated that Iraq had been planning terrorist attacks on the United States. Defectors claimed before the war that terrorists were trained by Iraq to hijack aircraft and commit suicide bombing at a camp called Salman Pak. These facts were confirmed after the invasion.

[Bob 101]

Freedom is needed everywhere, but whether or not people in there own home want to limt an individual's freedom, it is not national concern, it is the choice of the parent/gaurdian if they want the individual to not have a certain freedom.

[Montgomery Burns]

He did Canada no favour with his Free Trade agreement and certainly won no friends (other than accountants) with his GST.

Get real. One needs free trade in a global economy. Why do you want consumers to pay more money for goods? One item we sold had a 18% duty on it! Ridiculous. Our prices (in my company) dropped when they eliminated the 13.5% FST and replaced it with the GST - which businesses get a credit for. My customers were happy and that is what I want.

Protectionism rarely works.

[Trial-and-Error]

August et al, I have been meaning to ask you, have you tried applying for your green card? Having read some of your posts, I just know you're ready to play in the Bush league. It's just that--well, you so fit the American profile of the great unwashed.

Just remember, you only go around once so why not experience the real thing instead of remaining in Canada and living the American way of life vicariously?

And while you're there, why not sign up for Junior's war. Do right by George and feel the thrill of it all.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

Just remember, you only go around once so why not experience the real thing instead of remaining in Canada and living the American way of life vicariously

Because in Canada, in you're not with us, you're against us!

August1991 doesn't seem to understand that all Canadians must believe in the following things...

-peacekeeping, not policing

-diversity, not assimilation

-the beaver's standing as a truly proud and noble animal

-designating toques as hats

-and referring to couches as chesterfields

And if you don't like it, get the hell out!

[Trial-and-Error]

Tokyo - I am aghast and sorely offended! Surely you're not suggesting that I was suggesting that August should get the hell out of Canada because he does not reflect the "Canadian way"? Mon dieu, non! I'm not a "love it or leave it" type. I was merely trying to show empathy and concern for August. Wouldn't you agree that he owes it to himself to give the American way of life a shot? Why be miserable in a country which favours peace when what you really admire and support is one that favours war and a military economy? The U.S. of A. would be that one. A perfect fit, no?

[Black Dog]

At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently.

[Black Dog]

Iraq wrestles with role of Islamic law

Women activists have been suffering since the last war in Iraq because of calls for improved rights and equality with men in this Muslim country.

[Black Dog]

Saudi's hard line on gays

Dozens of Saudi men caught dancing and "behaving like women" at a party have been sentenced to a total of 14,200 lashes, after a trial held behind closed doors and without defence lawyers.

The men were also given jail sentences of up to two years.

Saudis execute six men without sentence

A Sudanese beheaded in Saudi Arabia yesterday for drug smuggling brought the total so far this year to 40, more than the country's 33 executions in the whole of 2004.

House of Saud re-embraces totalitarianism

The regime is not giving up power or changing its historically repressive domestic policies in the face of opposition, but - more predictably - closing ranks and reasserting its totalitarian rule. Emboldened by its success in the domestic "war on terror", which got under way only after their rule was directly threatened, the al-Saud is flexing its other muscles so that the masses, too, are left in no doubt that it is back in total control. As with other Arab regimes, it is using the "war on terror" to silence all dissent, but in ways that have peculiar Saudi characteristics.

Meanwhile, at the ranch...

Saudi sources said that crown prince Abdullah and Bush will hold on April 24 "a frank meeting between the leaders of the two friendly countries" in the farm of the American President in Crawford, Texas.

[Black Dog]

Afghan woman stoned to death for talking to a man

It's less than a week since the tiny Afghan village community witnessed the execution of 25-year-old Bibi Amena for adultery, but by Tuesday life appeared to have returned to normal. Bibi was sentenced to death by local religious leaders in the Spingul valley in the isolated northeastern province of Badakhshan.

Her crime was to be found in the company of a man she was not married to.

[gradkiss]

Yes. It's nascent fascism.

Nascent?

The house is burning down and BD is worried because the brother-in-law, whom BD never really liked, appears to be playing with a lighter.

The United States has successfully avoided fascism for over 200 years. The system is fairly well designed and there are many, many people who would stand up to defend it.

I'm not too worried about fascism arriving any time soon in the US.

Now in Canada, on the other hand, I don't know. The distinctive features of Canada are that the provincial governments keep the federal government in check and the provincial governments are civilized with one another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the way I exchange the look with us and the word freedom itself, is the rights we have and share with one another, even with others around the world, we walk a walk immune or priveleged with each other, and this walk is indeed defined one at a time with each other, we are we the poeple as a whole free independent unit, memebers citizens, without the hurt of each other...we should not be in the eye of each other's mother, insulting her with her child ridiculed by us, we walk the 14th amendment here to the bill of rights, despite what we see, we have the law written there, no state shall make any law that would remove or disparge any immunity or privelege of an american citizen...yes I would agree with Bush, but what does blind us all and cause so much grief between us all?money....remove it and see what would happen to us...our mothers do prove this flesh to flesh birth...not I will I attach any single group by all of us or I voted to do all the ill before I lived...how could we as american citizens not handle each dispute between us as a one to one single case with each beween two instead of all of us? if we did wage war somewhere, would it be between us all here? no, I'll not take part in that, yes we do have that string called a vote to prove we can freely vote...but how about the ones that got sent to prison for crimes like drugs, when we could have simply removed the drug and called it not a war against us...we could have removed the burden further and removed that money that has no vote or conscience...it's not what we should use to represent us...we are better than here...the question for me is not to attack a single group here, those men or woman are single carbon units, they are members here is they agree to the immunities and priveleges and do not harm me...so yes we are free, but we must represent this freedom to and vote...George

[TokyoTakarazuka]

Afghan woman stoned to death for talking to a man

Events like this happen frequently in the Third World, especially Africa and the Middle East, because national governments rarely effectively enforce law in the countryside. However, if you’re trying to imply that conditions for women in Afghanistan have gotten worse since the NATO invasion then you’re incorrect. Here is a small sampling of the reports which document the flourishing of human rights that have occurred since the fall of the Taliban.

Taliban's demise benefits Afghanistan's women

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/arch...0/18/2003207391

When the Taliban controlled this western city, Helal had to teach in secret. Now she is free to advertise, illustrative of the resurrection of the urban, educated women who were most oppressed by the Taliban... Girls as well as boys crowd into her basement classroom, and she no longer needs to school them in how to lie to the Taliban about it... "We can work freely, comfortably now" with men, she said.

Reflections on progress for Afghanistan's children

http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=87255

As a spokesperson for UNICEF, I have the unrivalled luxury of dipping my nose into a whole range of activities, and reporting on them to the outside world... I still can't think of that day in 2002 - when my Afghan colleagues and I watched the first girls walk back into their schools - without my heart jumping... I have visited projects where widows and other women have been able to earn an income in their own right for the first time in a decade; and I have drafted statements applauding Government commitments to key child rights legislation and international conventions, which in some cases set examples for other countries.

Small nonprofit, big goal: education for Afghanistan

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...anistan09m.html

Three years after the Taliban fell from power in Afghanistan, some girls there have never set foot in a school... They traditionally were excluded from the educational system; during the Taliban's rule, they were banned from schools... Across Afghanistan, schools are seeing record enrollments, with more than 4 million students in school, according to UNICEF statistics. At least one-third of those students are girls.

Women Enter Business World

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/arr/a...2_152_3_eng.txt

In a country where their activities are still often severely restricted, women are playing a leading role in developing small businesses all across the country. At an awards ceremony last month honouring entrepreneurs who have successfully started up small businesses with the assistance of various microfinance programmes, 18 of the 23 recipients were women.

Strong Showing by Women Voters

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/arr/a...0_142_3_eng.txt

According to the latest voter turnout statistics, 40 per cent of the overall number of voters were women... In three Afghan provinces - Faryab, Daikundi and Nuristan - more women than men turned out to cast ballots for president during elections October 9.

AFGHANISTAN: Interview with head of independent human rights body

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportI...on=Central_Asia

Dr Sima Samar, the head of Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission... notes that "the main achievements is justification of the commission by the people. We have offices in Kabul and some of the provinces. At least the people of Afghanistan have seen AIHRC as somewhere to share their concerns and complaints. It is a significant development. In this country, three years ago no one could even mention the phrase 'human rights'. In the beginning, there was some propaganda against the commission among the public. Some elements who did not want public awareness on human rights spread allegations that the commission was against Afghan culture, and was spreading western culture and so on. But now we have proved that we are here to defend the rights of our suffering people and pursue the perpetrators of human rights violations."

You've also neglected in this thread to point out all the positive developments in civil liberties that have been seen in post-Saddam Iraq.

Dispatches from Iraq's feminist front

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.18/01-iraq.html

Al-Suwaij grew up under the harsh rule of Saddam Hussein, took up arms against the Iraqi ruler, and today is working to bring democracy - and especially women's rights - to a country that is struggling both with Hussein's legacy and an age-old authoritarian tradition. With her friend and comrade Ala Talabani, Al-Suwaij brought peace-building lessons from Iraq to the annual Women Waging Peace colloquium at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government this past week... Al-Suwaij and Talabani's views have been in demand. Both women have met with President Bush at the White House, and Al-Suwaij spoke to the Republican National Convention. Though they have taken different routes to become outspoken activists, they agree that this is a crucial moment for women in Iraq. A January election, they say, will decide whether women will really become equal citizens or lose their voices.

And this was the results of that election…

Iraqi women seek power to safeguard rights

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/i...iraq-women.html

"Sixty percent of voters were women. They were courageous enough to choose their leaders. And then there is the power in the upcoming assembly, 31 percent is women. Now the challenge is how to activate this power," said Nasreen Mustapha Berwari, minister for public works.

These advances, however, are not limited to women.

Baghdad book alley springs back to life

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Region2....rticleID=128066

Saddam Hussain would be grumbling in his prison cell if he knew. Al Mutannabi Street, the book-lined alley whose spirit he tried for decades to crush, is again filled with customers, from communists to clerics, who would once have faced jail for reading some of the material on offer.

Iraqi cartoonists mock militants and America alike

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040927/137/2gyws.html

Iraqi cartoonist Muayed Naima had to wait 35 years before he could draw what was on his mind... Since Saddam was ousted, Naima has made up for lost time in airing the brutality of the ousted president's regime. One of his cartoons depicts Saddam as a butcher chopping meat next to a sign reading: "We specialise in mass graves."

Iraqi labour movement makes global debut with tough task ahead

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp.../120841/1/.html

Iraqi labour unions making their global debut at a conference in Japan are seeking tips on their tough task -- how to make workers aware of rights suppressed for years by Saddam Hussein... It was the first-ever appearance of Iraqi organised labour at a congress of ICFTU, which meets every four years. Saddam only allowed a government-run union and persecuted the underground labour movement. Since the collapse of the regime, at least 10 independent trade unions have been set up in Iraq.

Such developments have made the people of Iraq and Afghanistan more optimistic now than they have been in decades. The number of people applying for refugee status in the First World is at the lowest level since 1987, due to overwhelming decreases in those applying from Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3615566.stm

Economic conditions are so good in Afghanistan that not only have most of the Afghan refugees in Pakistan returned for the first time in decades, but even native Pakistanis are immigrating north in order to find well-paying jobs.

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2004-daily/1...national/n7.htm

Kurds from Syria and Iran are also taking advantage of the freer intellectual climate in Iraq by enrolling at Iraqi universities in increasingly great numbers.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=5957

Although obviously more work needs to be done, there’s little doubt that the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq has been extremely beneficial to the human rights situation of both countries, for both men and women. The contrast can best be seen in these Freedom House reports, which already record strong and growing improvements in civil liberties in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to about 2004. All of this has occurred in countries that, as Sima Samar said, previously “could even mention the phrase 'human rights'.”

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...atings/iraq.htm

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...atings/iraq.htm

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...afghanistan.htm

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...stan2.htm\

The newly elected presidents of Afghanistan and Iraq have both expressed their respect for American efforts to promote human rights in their countries. Iraqi President Jalal Talibani said, “Our gratitude to the American people is immense and we should never be embarrassed to express it. Time and again the U.S. has given the world its most precious resource in the cause of freedom, the lives of its most talented and courageous young men and women.”