[foal]

You're going to too much effort to try to make these exaggerated generalizations to make your point, as if everything is black and white. In describing our system you go from "dictatorship" to "mob rule" to "representative mob rule". You claim the terminology is not important, but I'd say those are all pretty significantly different. I'm not sure "representative mob rule" even makes sense. If it's representative then it's not mob rule. If you don't want me "playing semantics" then stop labeling things with attention-grabbing evil/negative sounding words.
And you're making some incorrect assumptions about my position. E.g.:
"You said that iraq was wrong because the system was forced."
No I didn't. I said
"invading countries and trying to force them to have the sort of government we want doesn't work well."
There's a big difference.

[ QUOTE ]
wat do you claim democracy can do? what is democracy good for?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's good for countries where the vast majority of the population recognizes the democratic government as having some degree of legitimate authority. It's good for settling political disputes without actual fighting and for preventing any one person or faction from becoming too powerful. I never said "democracy only works when everyone gets along before hand". There are different degrees of getting along. And there's no country where everyone gets along. If a country is in enough chaos and no one recognizes the government as legit then democracy is not going to help much. That is all.
Isn't it ACers who have said that AC will only work in a society with libertarian social norms that respects property rights? If you agree with that then what sort of system would you consider best for societies in which that is not the case?