Iraq. Now what?
- Thread starter Ripper
- Start date
PrinceThrakhath
Spaceman
Let the people vote and create a democratic government... and then leave them alone?
Nice thought, but the hard part is making sure that it actually IS Democratic--merely having elections isn't enough--you have to ensure that the campaigns and elections are not rigged, and you have to have an independant judiciary so that somebody can challenge any elected officials who become wannabe-dictators.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
That's not quite right. Vice President Cheney, not Mr. Rumsfeld, worked for Halliburton in the past. The contract was to put out possible oil fires in Iraq -- they're, incidentally, the only company in the region equipped to do so.
Starting to sound suspiciously like a 24 plot? 
Anyway, I don't think we're going to let Iraq out from under our 'thumb' for quite some time. The economy has to be rebuilt, along with the government infrastructure, so as (as Ijuin said before me) a dictatorship cannot take power again. It's going to be awhile.
C-ya
Anyway, I don't think we're going to let Iraq out from under our 'thumb' for quite some time. The economy has to be rebuilt, along with the government infrastructure, so as (as Ijuin said before me) a dictatorship cannot take power again. It's going to be awhile.C-ya
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PrinceThrakhath
Let the people vote and create a democratic government... and then leave them alone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if they choose a fundamentalist government? It happened in Algeria, and they are now in an all but declared civil war. I think Iraq should have a democracy, but I'm not sure they will vote the wisest option. How long till they are prepared? I have little confidence in these societies so deeply dominated by their religious beliefs.
Sadly, this is the excuse Arab dictators use to explain to the western world why they can't give democracy to their people. I'm sure they take great care not to change this.
Zhak.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PrinceThrakhath
Let the people vote and create a democratic government... and then leave them alone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if they choose a fundamentalist government? It happened in Algeria, and they are now in an all but declared civil war. I think Iraq should have a democracy, but I'm not sure they will vote the wisest option. How long till they are prepared? I have little confidence in these societies so deeply dominated by their religious beliefs.
Sadly, this is the excuse Arab dictators use to explain to the western world why they can't give democracy to their people. I'm sure they take great care not to change this.Zhak.
PrinceThrakhath
Spaceman
Then that's their right? That's called democracy?
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
The main of which is that the people elect the government that they want, regardless of what people outside of the country think. It's become fashionable lately to claim that democracy is in danger in [insert country here] because [insert person here] was elected. But it's not these elections that endanger democracy, it's this sort of wrongheaded interference by people who claim to understand better what democracy is about.
Delance
Victory, you say?
Democracy is not a totalitarian dictatorship of the majority. That we call a totalitarian dictatorship. A democracy is a government with limited power, tolerance and respect for minorities, where people will not be robbed of their property or killed arbitrarily by the government.
If the ethnic/cultural/religious group A has 70% of the population of a country and elects a government with the objective of killing the ethnic/cultural/religious group B, that’s not democracy.
That’s not “wrongheaded interference by people who claim to understand better what democracy is about”, that’s just a fact.
Democracy has to be a consensual government where everyone has rights, regardless of whom is in charge. Not that you can't defend a nation’s right to have a dictatorship of the majority. Just don’t call it a “Democracy”.
Let’s use your own example, inserting some names. Those leaders didn’t gain power via normal elections, but it's still a good example.
“It's become fashionable lately to claim that democracy is in danger in Germany because Hitler of the National Socialist Party was elected. But it's not these elections that endanger democracy”
“It's become fashionable lately to claim that democracy is in danger in Cambodia because Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge was elected. But it's not these elections that endanger democracy”
“It's become fashionable lately to claim that democracy is in danger in the Soviet Union because Stalin of the Communist Party was elected. But it's not these elections that endanger democracy”
It's not the elections that endanger democracy, since they are just a part of democracry, and dictatorships also have elections. It's a government for the people - all the people, not just the majority.
If you say that's the western point of view and western values, well, that’s correct. By the times the Greeks were thinking about it, only their culture had the words to express such concepts.
Of course democracy is not restricted in any way by that. For the cultures that would later from Western Europe and the European-Colonized Americas, the idea of personal freedom, individual rights and consensual government were completely unknown and would probably sound very outrageous.
If the ethnic/cultural/religious group A has 70% of the population of a country and elects a government with the objective of killing the ethnic/cultural/religious group B, that’s not democracy.
That’s not “wrongheaded interference by people who claim to understand better what democracy is about”, that’s just a fact.
Democracy has to be a consensual government where everyone has rights, regardless of whom is in charge. Not that you can't defend a nation’s right to have a dictatorship of the majority. Just don’t call it a “Democracy”.
Let’s use your own example, inserting some names. Those leaders didn’t gain power via normal elections, but it's still a good example.
“It's become fashionable lately to claim that democracy is in danger in Germany because Hitler of the National Socialist Party was elected. But it's not these elections that endanger democracy”
“It's become fashionable lately to claim that democracy is in danger in Cambodia because Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge was elected. But it's not these elections that endanger democracy”
“It's become fashionable lately to claim that democracy is in danger in the Soviet Union because Stalin of the Communist Party was elected. But it's not these elections that endanger democracy”
It's not the elections that endanger democracy, since they are just a part of democracry, and dictatorships also have elections. It's a government for the people - all the people, not just the majority.
If you say that's the western point of view and western values, well, that’s correct. By the times the Greeks were thinking about it, only their culture had the words to express such concepts.
Of course democracy is not restricted in any way by that. For the cultures that would later from Western Europe and the European-Colonized Americas, the idea of personal freedom, individual rights and consensual government were completely unknown and would probably sound very outrageous.
t.c.cgi
Vice Admiral
There is a line to be drawn between American ideals and democracy, just for you Delance. Just because many American ideals coincide with Democracy, doesn't mean you need to have American ideals to have Democracy.
Your statement is as daft as saying "July is a summer month, so all summer months are July."
Your statement is as daft as saying "July is a summer month, so all summer months are July."
Delance
Victory, you say?
Wow, did you even read what I wrote, at all? Seriously, I said the exactly opposite of what you are criticizing me for.
Consensual Government, personal freedoms and individual rights are not American ideals, but DEMOCRATIC IDEALS embraced by the Americans, as well as many other countries.
Democracy is originally a western ideal, whether someone likes it or not, wheatear this is a politically correct historical fact or not.
It is not, fortunately, restricted to the culture from which it originated. If it were, the Americans could never have embraced it.
A country can have a theocratic government, a fundamentalist regime, a totalitarian dictatorship or a medieval monarchy. I didn’t say they couldn’t. I didn’t even say they shouldn’t.
The self-evident truth I stated is that for a country to be a democracy is must be truly embrace the ideals of democracy. Democracy isn’t just the rule of the majority – such government is the dictatorship of the majority.
It’s not about anyone’s personal view of democracy. A country where the majority can choose to expropriate, expel or kill the minority is not a democracy. It’s not even a defendable position, that kind of atrocity is the very thing Democracy is supposed to prevent.
It’s also obvious that when someone puts “Democratic” in the name of a totalitarian dictatorship it does not magically change its nature. It doesn’t work that way.
Now before you call anyone else’s statement stupid (daft = stupid according to dictionary.com), I suggest you do some things:
1. Read what was actually said
2. Learn the basics about the subject being discussed. Read some Bobbio or Rousseau - don't worry, they aren't American authors
3. Try to at least counter some of the points, instead of generically saying “you are wrong because I want to”
Consensual Government, personal freedoms and individual rights are not American ideals, but DEMOCRATIC IDEALS embraced by the Americans, as well as many other countries.
Democracy is originally a western ideal, whether someone likes it or not, wheatear this is a politically correct historical fact or not.
It is not, fortunately, restricted to the culture from which it originated. If it were, the Americans could never have embraced it.
A country can have a theocratic government, a fundamentalist regime, a totalitarian dictatorship or a medieval monarchy. I didn’t say they couldn’t. I didn’t even say they shouldn’t.
The self-evident truth I stated is that for a country to be a democracy is must be truly embrace the ideals of democracy. Democracy isn’t just the rule of the majority – such government is the dictatorship of the majority.
It’s not about anyone’s personal view of democracy. A country where the majority can choose to expropriate, expel or kill the minority is not a democracy. It’s not even a defendable position, that kind of atrocity is the very thing Democracy is supposed to prevent.
It’s also obvious that when someone puts “Democratic” in the name of a totalitarian dictatorship it does not magically change its nature. It doesn’t work that way.
Now before you call anyone else’s statement stupid (daft = stupid according to dictionary.com), I suggest you do some things:
1. Read what was actually said
2. Learn the basics about the subject being discussed. Read some Bobbio or Rousseau - don't worry, they aren't American authors
3. Try to at least counter some of the points, instead of generically saying “you are wrong because I want to”
The story behind our base on Cuba is one of the funniest things in international relations history ever.