Why a Democratic Iraq Will never Succeed: Recipe for Disastor...

[mosdef]

Well, we'll never really know if being there helps or hurts a person to assess the situation. Hypothetically, a soldier who believes:

- That the U.S. has a morally justified mandate to set standards for the world; and
- That the use of violence is the best tool to make sure that those standards are met

will go to a place like Iraq and conclude:

- Standards are not being met; and
- Lot's of force is being used; and
- Therefore even more force in necessary to fix the problem.

Now, the fact that this hypothetical soldier sees a situation and can interpret it as supporting his own beliefs does not necessarily make his beliefs logically valid. In fact, in the emotional maelstrom of a warzone the ability to use rational thought is going to be seriously inhibited by the constant exposure to emotional stimulation.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Also, lol at your Vietnam reference. Please tell the class what happened in Saigon in 1975. "

Why don't you tell the class what happened in Saigon in 2007 (we trade and invest with them). I'm not sure why you think the fact that you are a soldier who participated in an unjust war of aggression against an enemy who had done no harm to your country qualifies you to predict the future of the reigion, but I still think Richard Clarke is more qualified to comment on this than you. He had access to briefings and stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you think the fact that you are a soldier who spent nearly a year on the ground, interacting with the people, understanding their issues and desires, attempting to protect many of the from violence from their supposed countrymen, and getting shot at whilst doing it, qualifies you to predict the future of the reigion

NVM Little point in the discussion. It's all black and white, and the best analysts are clearly those who have never been there, never risked anything there, and never cared about anyone who has been there or lives there.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT but you'll never hear Goodforyouwin admit how wrong he is.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a system of majority rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just for discussion purposes tell me of one democratic country? By that, I mean, not where the mantra is repeated about the system, but where it is actually so.

Just to make things clear. I am pro-democratic, I simply think that your definition isn't correct and therefore worth thinking about as a concept and I am definitely not a supporter of any from of AC as I see their statements as even more naive/childish/unrealistic than your own, about democracy.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a system of majority rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just for discussion purposes tell me of one democratic country? By that, I mean, not where the mantra is repeated about the system, but where it is actually so.

Just to make things clear. I am pro-democratic, I simply think that your definition isn't correct and therefore worth thinking about as a concept and I am definitely not a supporter of any from of AC as I see their statements as even more naive/childish/unrealistic than your own, about democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there are any true blue democracies. That would involve direct referendum-style voting on every law. I think the closest are those that allow for proportional representation, which is common in Europe.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is a system of majority rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just for discussion purposes tell me of one democratic country? By that, I mean, not where the mantra is repeated about the system, but where it is actually so.

Just to make things clear. I am pro-democratic, I simply think that your definition isn't correct and therefore worth thinking about as a concept and I am definitely not a supporter of any from of AC as I see their statements as even more naive/childish/unrealistic than your own, about democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to point out something actually wrong with my definition?

when you say you are pro-democratic... what do you mean by
that?

I'll probably accept any country you want to throw out as democratic. I already gave an example though - Iraq.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
care to point out something actually wrong with my definition?


[/ QUOTE ]
majority
[ QUOTE ]

when you say you are pro-democratic... what do you mean by
that?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think the USA, Russia, most countries, in fact are, as they claim, democratic by their definitions.
[ QUOTE ]


I'll probably accept any country you want to throw out as democratic. I already gave an example though - Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I like, which is the anti-thesis of AC, for instance. I think it is the failing of democracy, the slowness of it in overturning decisions. That is its redeeming feature: it is slow and not necessarily popular or a view of the majority. It prevents the "might is right" success.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
majority

[/ QUOTE ]


Why dont you redefine democracy for me. Actually state a definition.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the USA, Russia, most countries, in fact are, as they claim, democratic by their definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

please just define democracy for me.

[ QUOTE ]

That is what I like, which is the anti-thesis of AC, for instance. I think it is the failing of democracy, the slowness of it in overturning decisions. That is its redeeming feature: it is slow and not necessarily popular or a view of the majority. It prevents the "might is right" success.

[/ QUOTE ]

im not sure what your talking about here and would appreciate you expanding.

How do you relate your views about democracy to success in Iraq? since that is the topic at hand...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

majority




Why dont you redefine democracy for me. Actually state a definition.


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that democracy had any reality beyond you using it as a reason, OR NOT, to invade Iraq!
I think that democracy is always defined as it is suitable to its citizens. It just happened to be different from country to country and from time to time.

I know of no real absolute/definitive way of defining democracy. Personally I have experienced it in many different ways, but it always was slow in responding to extreme absolutist ways. I hope it keeps this way!

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]


I never claimed that democracy had any reality beyond you using it as a reason, OR NOT, to invade Iraq!

[/ QUOTE ]

You said you were pro-democracy?

[ QUOTE ]
I think that democracy is always defined as it is suitable to its citizens. It just happened to be different from country to country and from time to time.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is the style of system decided? do you support colonial nation building?

how are constitutions amended in all the countries you claim to be democratic but somehow think majorities don't rule?

[ QUOTE ]

I know of no real absolute/definitive way of defining democracy. Personally I have experienced it in many different ways, but it always was slow in responding to extreme absolutist ways. I hope it keeps this way!

[/ QUOTE ]


if you cant define it, how do you know you've ever experienced it? Further, under this assumption, how do you know my definition is wrong?

Also, id appreciate if you can somehow relate this to my comments about a failing democratic Iraq.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you redefine democracy for me. Actually state a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zygote - I know you're engaging MidGe here but I'll throw in my two cents as on of the few on the board that does not retch at the notion of democracy.

Democracy: The political philosophy that the best way to define laws and mediate conflicts is by measuring the preference of the majority.

Democratic State: The organization of a geographic area that defines who comprises the majority and the procedures used to ascertain the preference of the majority.

Many people on this board attack the concept of democracy by pointing out the failures or specific democratic states. To me, the question of whether or not democracy is a valid philosophy due to specific failures to create a functioning democratic state is not definitively answered. Certainly, a valid thesis would be that the failures of democratics states to enact democracy is evidence of the futility of the vision of democracy. Whether of not one accepts that thesis is still up for debate, I think.