Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of this isn't true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraq needs democracy like a fish needs a bicycle.

[/ QUOTE ]

like a submarine needs a screen door [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-----------

in order to define victory, we must define objectives -

our objectives are unrealistic - we must redefine victory next [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

and if they got 50.1 percent approval, that's a mandate - anything less and they ignore the polls -

RB

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of this isn't true?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "well" and the "nice" seem OK, but the rest is good only for a comedy sketch.

[Coco]

Yeah!

Don't forget that Saddam got 100% of the vote in 2002, and 99.6% in the election prior. How could the US "bring democracy" to a country that is already democratic?

[Iq75]

In democracy all people should have the equal right to decide how a society is run.

Having said that, it’s funny to see in some cases how the exporters of democracy have reacted when the people that they have liberated start voting “the wrong way”. They occupy a country and give every man a vote. Now if that vote indicates that the majority indeed wants to live in a communistic/fundamental Islamic/dictatorship, they start saying that the decision is somehow void. Or that it’s against the fundamental values of democracy/human rights etc. and thus has to be disregarded.

Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over. I don’t think that the US government would in this case just accept that decision, they would probably rather just keep the nation in the dictatorship of their own armed forces.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
In democracy all people should have the equal right to decide how a society is run.

Having said that, it’s funny to see in some cases how the exporters of democracy have reacted when the people that they have liberated start voting “the wrong way”. They occupy a country and give every man a vote. Now if that vote indicates that the majority indeed wants to live in a communistic/fundamental Islamic/dictatorship, they start saying that the decision is somehow void. Or that it’s against the fundamental values of democracy/human rights etc. and thus has to be disregarded.

Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over. I don’t think that the US government would in this case just accept that decision, they would probably rather just keep the nation in the dictatorship of their own armed forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have done a fine job illustrating the inherent problem with pure democracy.

It's also a good example of why a strong Constitution is needed in any country, in order to protect certain rights. Democracy alone does not protect human rights, civil rights or freedoms.

The Neo-Cons should not have tried to install democracy in Iraq (because it will fail). Nor should the Neo-Cons have called what they wished to install, "democracy".

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow you; would you elaborate please?

[Iq75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US might be semiOK with dictatorship a la the shah or the saudi (especially since at the moment the things are so messy that they mostly just want a decent way out of there) as long as they could control or work with the dictator. BUT they would not be ok with a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state (a la sadr, Iran, taleban) because they would nationalize the oil and challenge israel.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US might be semiOK with dictatorship a la the shah or the saudi (especially since at the moment the things are so messy that they mostly just want a decent way out of there) as long as they could control or work with the dictator. BUT they would not be ok with a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state (a la sadr, Iran, taleban) because they would nationalize the oil and challenge israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and let's not forget stoning or murdering women accused of adultery, imprisoning or executing homosexuals, and denying non-Muslims and women the equality of civil rights held by Muslim males.