Story of the day

Hey all:))first of all, my apologies to the "nice jeff" :)) i am sorry for the confusion :)this period, i received more mails than i usually get, the majority of my readers were americans (probably 95%, no surveys, but basing on the mails i got)and the majority of my readers, and the very majority of the emails i get, are very nice, very supportive, and i thank everyone of them, and i apologize cause i dont have the time to reply to each one of them, specially for the over-10kb emails, but i certainly read every word and enjoy it, so thank you, and i promise to answer as soon as i can.back to our subject, the very funny thing is that for some people, the reference is Saddam, 35 years of minds-blocking made them think that the reference is Saddam, and thats why i am reading some comments (and with all shame i say i received one of these emails too, from an iraqi) saying: why do yo critisize Allawi, isnt he better than Saddam? or somethign like: whats your problem?? do you want Saddam back?? what would Saddam do to a reporter if he was mad at him??and that is so sad, that is a crack in the manners walls, a crack in the humanity wall, to believe that the reference is Saddam, and compare others to him, to justify their corruption, dictatorship, and arrogance.isnt that just sad? i really want to cry.i wish i was there in that conference, i would stand up on my feet, and ask for permession to talk, and i would say to Allawi in front of the cameras: Mr. president, i demand that you talk to the people in this room in a civilized way, you are an employee, the times of dictatorship are gone, you take your salary from our money, you are responsible in front of us, and we have every right to have all the answers for our questions.am i right or not? wouldnt that be just beautiful? wouldn't it just open a new page of standards that say that the president isnt a God that you should fear, he is an employee that should fear you?i will repeat it again, the president, any president, is an employee, and people are his boss, that is khalidism.as we live in iraq, we see a variety of openions, and its everyone's right, to think what he likes, as long as that doesnt lead to hurting others, that is what democracy is about...right?i want to ask a question!what if, the baathists, re-organized their lines, and came to us with speeches like: finally we got rid of the dictator, Saddam ruined the principles of our party, Sadam killed the good baathists, we will restore the realy baath party, the party that calls for lab lab lab, i think you understood what i mean, and these baathists will run to ellections as a new-old party, now you would say: sure they will fail in the ellections, but i will say: do you know how many millions were hurt by the fall of Saddam, you know, baathists, mokhabarat, whoever, who benifited from the existance of Saddam, those millions, who were marginized after the war, and kept with no jobs (which is a terrible american mistake) they were marginized, the thing that led to the fact that while they are marginized, left out of the community, they were encouraged that way to create their own community, a baathist community, call it whatever you want, and that community is thirsty for power, and want to restore their old lives, dont you think that they will support this new baathy party, and join it repeating the "Saddam changed what baath is about" speech? while i know, you know that they are lying, and that it is only a mean to get to power.what will you do then? ban the baath party? but then we will be no better than Saddam right? ban the parties that we dont like, let them work? you tell me!my point behind all that, is that democracy is a two sided sword, one side provides freedom, good healthy communities, and the other side provides some disturbing people in my comments section:)))) me*