Is this how the westerners think??

[brianleahy]

Point taken, though I would point out that I referred to conditions that "SEEM to us" like they belong in the past. If you feel differently, that's certainly your right.

Though absolute rulers and secular laws based on religious doctrine surely persist to this day, to me they emphatically BELONG in the distant past. And I would argue that we had both concepts in one package in the Middle Ages: the Catholic church ruled Europe with an iron fist for centuries. Secular monarchs (until, of course, Henry VIII, whose reign came roughly at the very end of the middle ages) - trembled at the pope's word.

And I was off about the feudal system; I meant vaguely a master/peon system, a rehash of strict classism, and no, to my knowlege no such system exists in Iraq.

[Arden]

Ed: That's the exact study I was referring to, as we just covered it in my AP Psychology class, and I noticed a number of correlations between its results and the current Iraqi situation. Thank you for providing the details thereof.

Brian: Excellent political outburst. I think you hit the nail (or Saddam) directly on the head. I mentioned the Stone Age, etc., because many said we were going to bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age... oh wait they're already there; however, I think Iraq is more developed than Afghanistan. (Interesting side note: In The Best of the World's Worst, they tell where the worst golf course in the world is: Kabul. )

Originally posted by toast
All Iraqis have TV to watch their Raïs...

Not since we knocked out their communication tower...

[Darkshadow]

toast - generational effects basically means the way a group of people in an area are raised (the values that are passed on, the things they learn from those around them, that sort of thing). Hereditary basically means something inborn, a bit different

brian, a master/peon society comes a bit close to describing how things have been. Not exactly, but pretty close.

[toast]

Originally posted by Darkshadow
toast - generational effects basically means (...) a bit different

I do agree. However that's too small difference for posting here

Originally posted by toast
All Iraqis have TV to watch their Raïs...
Answer by Arden
Not since we knocked out their communication tower...

Bombing media buildings, whatever the propaganda they bring to the masses, is forbidden by international laws.
Amnesty International and the secretary of Internal Journalists' Federation have already complained about that and GW. Bush will certainly have to pay for this terrible mistake.
The end does not justify such means.

[brianleahy]

Without knowing all the details, I have to wonder: If Saddam used civilian TV station to send orders to his troops (and I am by no means certain that this was occurring) would that be sufficient to requalify the broadcasting equipment as a valid military target?

If not, it seems to me that Saddam could get Geneva Convention protection for all his military telecom equipment by having a once-daily civilian news broadcast from each military radio.

Furthermore, I think the rule is to forbid the supression of a 'free press'. Does a station under direct and full control of the government qualify??

[Arden]

Considering all the sanctions Saddam ignores and all the Geneva Convention policies he violates, I don't think Bush will come under much fire for knocking out a TV tower that may have been used tactically.

[toast]

Saddam does not use TV to send orders to his troops. He uses very good talkie-walkies that were provided to him by some very big country everyone here knows .

Indeed, Arden, I don't think Bush will get into much trouble because of what he did to the Iraqi TV.

[Arden]

No, but he does use TV to enliven his people to obey his bidding, which includes acting like human shields and fighting against our troops. I didn't say he uses them to talk to his troops; I said he uses them tactically, which includes involving his people in the war effort.