Why are we going to Iraq to create a Democracy?

[Xerxez]

I don't understand. Do they think that a democracy would help that nation?
I am not democrat or republican but what the President is doing is wrong.
We all know that the US always wants to be the policemen of the world.
A democracy is no better than any other forms of government.
1.) Democracies are not necessarily more efficient economically than other forms of government.
2) Democracies are not necessarily more efficient administratively.
3)Democracies are not likely to appear more orderly, consensual, stable, or governablethan the autocracies (other forms of government) they replace.

Iraq can become more corrupt than it is with this type of government....
It took us a VERY long time to become who we are today.....
We would probraly stay stationed in Iraq for a long time
So why should we use such an unreliable government for others if we cannot govern ourselves efficiently as we should?

[Omega]

You have a better idea? Ahh lets build a castle and declare a King of Iraq. Feudalism rocks!

[Megatron40]

Dictatorship Communism Monarchy Vs. Democracy

I got $10 bucks on Democracy.

[Sendok]

I got bling on any human instution has the possibility of failure.

[Xerxez]

Sure, If that is what the people want. Only 63% of voters in Iraq voted.
The other percentage is obviously still angry for "World Ruler Bush" reconstructing Iraq into something THEY dont believe in. Democracies come from religion... Most European governments are Monarchy (God is supreme..Bla Blah)and so forth.
This is where my idea comes in. Bottomline: America should help themselves before they can help others.
Iraq has been this form of government for a loooong while...so why now change it?
Just because one person says its OK?? For the oil?? To make ourselves feel better??
I believe Iraqis should pick what form of government to use not to pick some hand picked candidates that Bush picked so he can squeeze the oil out of the country.

Just because Democracy works for one country doesn't mean it will work for others, especially Iraq's.
That is what is wrong with the US...People think that their way is the best way when it is not necessarially. There is no good or evil government....there is only perspective.
So why should Iraq follow the ideals of the US?

All governments have the possibility of failure....But why not let the people pick the form of government they want?

[IEatFriedPikmin]

less than half of qualified americans vote. 63% is a lot compared to most countries who vote.

Why change it? You live under the rule of saddam and see.

[Coded-Dude]

thats how america was founded.....and apparently our idea was so good, we are going to force others to adhere to it(out idea)!

[xbdestroya]

Ok what this topic really is is a topic on government types. Now so let's step back.

First, most of Europe is not monarchy, and the monarchies that exist are mostly constitutional in nature.

Secondly, a lot of the people who voted in Iraq hate Bush plenty much - it's not just limited to those who didn't vote! But that being said, the Iraqi turnout was higher than the majority of American turnouts; so the numbers were by and large good.

Thirdly, I think there is a lot of confusion for some people with the whole democracy, communism thing. And this isn't at you Xerxez...

But most communist countries are countries where the majority of people wanted to adopt communism in the first place. Isn't that democracy? I'm not counting by the wat the countries Stalin decided to annex arbitrarily, but countries that had their own 'communist revolutions.' Obviously Stalin is no exemplar of *any* government type.

Now, whenever any of these countries went over to communism, the US would be there behind the scenes to help whatever totalitarian leader was beign deposed. To help 'free' the people from the influence and return them to their previous rule by tyrant. Hey - guess what? They wanted communism. What's wrong with that?

I don't think there's a problem with communism at it's core - it's not a system which inherently strips people of their rights, freedoms, or anything else. The problem lies in the fact that it is possible to go to a one-party system where leadership can become corrupt - same with a monarchy, same with a democracy (like France w/Napolean and Iraq under Saddam, or Germany under Hitler). Because yes, back in the day, Saddam did in fact win the election - before he could rig them. Obviously the same with Hitler before he started doing his own thing.

So no one is immune, but democracies tend to be more immune.

Still, any democratic choice to enact a different government type (be it communist, theocratic, or whatever) should in my mind be honored by other countries, because the initial decision was *democratic* in nature.

[C.J.]

You have a better idea? Ahh lets build a castle and declare a King of Iraq. Feudalism rocks!

Sounds good to me!

[Xerxez]

less than half of qualified americans vote. 63% is a lot compared to most countries who vote.

Why change it? You live under the rule of saddam and see.

Ok. No. First of all when America first voted for their 1st president there was a higher percentage than it is now. Secondly 63% of the people qualified to vote voted. That is a sad number for their so-called first democratic election.

Also, there is no bad government. There should only be improvements. Before Saddam overthrew the government with his military power, their government was based on religion. Why dont they choose if they want to go back to their old system rather than a system of uncertainty (a democracy)?
As well as democracy worked for us, can you guarantee that it will work for people of Islamic faith or in general? It can even turn out to be worse than it was even with Saddam under rule....

[Xerxez]

Ok what this topic really is is a topic on government types. Now so let's step back.

First, most of Europe is not monarchy, and the monarchies that exist are mostly constitutional in nature.

Secondly, a lot of the people who voted in Iraq hate Bush plenty much - it's not just limited to those who didn't vote! But that being said, the Iraqi turnout was higher than the majority of American turnouts; so the numbers were by and large good.

Thirdly, I think there is a lot of confusion for some people with the whole democracy, communism thing. And this isn't at you Xerxez...

But most communist countries are countries where the majority of people wanted to adopt communism in the first place. Isn't that democracy? I'm not counting by the wat the countries Stalin decided to annex arbitrarily, but countries that had their own 'communist revolutions.' Obviously Stalin is no exemplar of *any* government type.

Now, whenever any of these countries went over to communism, the US would be there behind the scenes to help whatever totalitarian leader was beign deposed. To help 'free' the people from the influence and return them to their previous rule by tyrant. Hey - guess what? They wanted communism. What's wrong with that?

I don't think there's a problem with communism at it's core - it's not a system which inherently strips people of their rights, freedoms, or anything else. The problem lies in the fact that it is possible to go to a one-party system where leadership can become corrupt - same with a monarchy, same with a democracy (like France w/Napolean and Iraq under Saddam, or Germany under Hitler). Because yes, back in the day, Saddam did in fact win the election - before he could rig them. Obviously the same with Hitler before he started doing his own thing.

So no one is immune, but democracies tend to be more immune.

Still, any democratic choice to enact a different government type (be it communist, theocratic, or whatever) should in my mind be honored by other countries, because the initial decision was *democratic* in nature.

Yes!

Governability is a challenge for all regimes, not just democratic ones. Given the political exhaustion and loss of legitimacy that have befallen autocracies from sultanistic Paraguay to totalitarian Albaina, it may seem that only democracies can now be expected to govern effectively and legitimately. Experience has shown, however, that democracies can lose the ability to govern. Mass publics can become disenchanted with their performance. Even more threatening is the temptation for leaders to fiddle with procedures and ultimately undermine the principle "by the consent of the people" or bend the rules of their own democracy (Saddam).

[Relient J]

The real question is, why do we want to spread democracy, when we have a constitutional republic? There's a big difference between the two.

[Xerxez]

Intresting.
Why should we?
Is it because we think we are supreme; is it because of the imperialistic ideas we have of taking oil or is it because of our benevolence, our kindness to "Hero" the world?

[The Dude]

We all know that the US always wants to be the policemen of the world.
no sir, the US is damned if we do, damned if we dont
A democracy is no better than any other forms of government.
1.) Democracies are not necessarily more efficient economically than other forms of government.
Capitalism in the only rational form of economics, and it can only exist in a free nation
2) Democracies are not necessarily more efficient administratively.
3)Democracies are not likely to appear more orderly, consensual, stable, or governablethan the autocracies (other forms of government) they replace.
Free democracies are the only form of governmnet that support the basic rights of man, his individual human rights. all collective forms of government violate human rights by sacraficing the indvidual for the so called greater-good (to who and what?)

Iraq can become more corrupt than it is with this type of government....
It took us a VERY long time to become who we are today.....
We would probraly stay stationed in Iraq for a long time
So why should we use such an unreliable government for others if we cannot govern ourselves efficiently as we should?

The US while far from a perfect society (we would have to get rid of allmost all government controlls for it to be a true free society) we still are the only shining becon of freedom in the world. Many other countires have converted thier governments sucessfully, Iraq will be no diffrent in 20 years. BTW we get the majority of our oil from Canada, Russia and South America, we only get 2-6% of our oil from Iraq. The oil war argument has been debunked several times on these fourms

[Viper]

63% is an absolute success when you consider that everyone of them was doing so in the face of potential death by suicide bombing (of which we didn't have to worry about back in the 1700's). You can't draw a parallel like that without considering more variables. Would you go to the polls if you knew people were doing all they could to blow you up for doing so? That's resolve for you.

Democracy has one advantage and it's a big one. It's the right of the people to redeisgn the entire government as they see fit. Saddam would have never done as such for them. We've installed a Democratic based government that gives the people the right to completely scrap the government and choose what they want instead if they so please.

Think of it this way, we didn't give Iraq Democracy, we gave them freedom of choice.

[xbdestroya]

Free democracies are the only form of governmnet that support the basic rights of man, his individual human rights. all collective forms of government violate human rights by sacraficing the indvidual for the so called greater-good (to who and what?)

Now that's just not true - I could easily envision a 'collectivist' government that respected individual rights. Do you think there should be airport security? If so, then you're already off of the 'one-true-path' of pure freedom and somewhere along the 'greater good' continuum youself.

And if you don't think there should be airport security,well, you're just not very practical.


The US while far from a perfect society (we would have to get rid of allmost all government controlls for it to be a true free society) we still are the only shining becon of freedom in the world. Many other countires have converted thier governments sucessfully, Iraq will be no diffrent in 20 years. BTW we get the majority of our oil from Canada, Russia and South America, we only get 2-6% of our oil from Iraq. The oil war argument has been debunked several times on these fourms

I can't believe you'd think though that we are the *only* 'shining' beacon of democracy in this world. I can think of any number of countries with healthier democratic/republican/parliamentary systems to our own. In truth, we have a fairly dysfunctional two-party system.

PS - Capitalism can exist in non free nations as well, nor is it the only 'rational' economic model. They all (how many are there really though?) have their benefits and drawbacks, as has been discussed before.

[Wes]

1.) Democracies are not necessarily more efficient economically than other forms of government.
2) Democracies are not necessarily more efficient administratively.
3)Democracies are not likely to appear more orderly, consensual, stable, or governablethan the autocracies (other forms of government) they replace.



It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

[The Dude]

Now that's just not true - I could easily envision a 'collectivist' government that respected individual rights. Do you think there should be airport security? If so, then you're already off of the 'one-true-path' of pure freedom and somewhere along the 'greater good' continuum youself.


That's right you can only envision it, a collectivized government has never worked. History has proven it time and time again. Any form of government that makes the individual sacrafice himself for the greater good is violating that mans basic human rights, because no man should be a slave to the state, physically or economically. Government should only have a monopoly on physical force (law inforcement) and in a society were individual rights are the basis of the law, the government would not be able to violate them. Remember the individual is the greatest minority in any given country, who is fighting for his rights?

[xbdestroya]

That's right you can only envision it, a collectivized government has never worked. History has proven it time and time again. Any form of government that makes the individual sacrafice himself for the greater good is violating that mans basic human rights, because no man should be a slave to the state, physically or economically. Government should only have a monopoly on physical force (law inforcement) and in a society were individual rights are the basis of the law, the government would not be able to violate them. Remember the individual is the greatest minority in any given country, who is fighting for his rights?


Well I see where you are coming from, but at the same time, not one functional government type has not been collectivized to one degree or another - and that includes our own. All governments exist on a scale, and none is at either extreme. Those being I guess essentially a 'hive' vs anarchy.

[Xerxez]

The US while far from a perfect society (we would have to get rid of allmost all government controlls for it to be a true free society) we still are the only shining becon of freedom in the world. Many other countires have converted thier governments sucessfully, Iraq will be no diffrent in 20 years. BTW we get the majority of our oil from Canada, Russia and South America, we only get 2-6% of our oil from Iraq. The oil war argument has been debunked several times on these fourms

In 20 years?? You must be joking....try 100-200 years. Democratization will not necessarily bring economic growth, social peace, administrative efficiency, political harmony, or free markets to Iraq as it does in the US for a long while. We will still have soldiers stationed there for that amount of time. Until then, America will rule under Iraq like an Imperialistic country and "help" them. We only have taken 2-6% while Saddam was in rule. We'll see that number increase greatly...trust me.

[plebben]

Think of it this way, we didn't give Iraq Democracy, we gave them freedom of choice.

What if they in the end choose to elect a new dictator?
Then all america did was to kill a lot of iraqies, who in most cases didnt know anything else than to fight the invaders, in order to establish a freedom that was only an illusion created by the american dream.

Most of the people in this country doesnt know anything else than living under a dictatorship.

Just something to ponder over.

Does any one nation have the right to play that God-role america has?

[Xerxez]

the dude:
Capitalism in the only rational form of economics, and it can only exist in a free nation

While the long term compatibility between democracy and capitalism does not seem in doubt, despite their serious tension, it is not clear whether the promotion of such liberal economic goals as the right of individuals to own property and refrain profits, the clearing function of markets, the private settlement of disputes, the freedom to produce without government regulation, or the privatization of state owned enterprises, necessarily furthers the consolidation of democracy.

[Xerxez]

What if they in the end choose to elect a new dictator?
Then all america did was to kill a lot of iraqies, who in most cases didnt know anything else than to fight the invaders, in order to establish a freedom that was only an illusion created by the american dream.

Most of the people in this country doesnt know anything else than living under a dictatorship.

Just something to ponder over.

Does any one nation have the right to play that God-role america has?

Exactly.

[Viper]

What if they in the end choose to elect a new dictator?

At least that dictator was chosen by the people.

Besides, do you honestly think we'll allow another ruthless dictator to rule Iraq after the efforts we just did?


Most of the people in this country doesnt know anything else than living under a dictatorship.
Most Americans only knew monarchy rule 230 years ago. Why didn't we create a new monarchy?


Does any one nation have the right to play that God-role america has?Does any other nation besides America have the capability to do so? Does any other country receive the volume of aid requests, finanical and military, that America does?

It's a catch-22.
If we help, we're policing the world.
If we don't, we're selfics inconsiderate bastards.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We may as well help.

[IEatFriedPikmin]

Ok. No. First of all when America first voted for their 1st president there was a higher percentage than it is now. Secondly 63% of the people qualified to vote voted. That is a sad number for their so-called first democratic election.


Well duh, but that was over 200 years ago. the population was a lot smaller, and it was a bigger deal back then. they did just fight for their independence. 63 is over half. i really cant think of a place in the world today where over half of the people vote who are qualified.

[Viper]

Not just that but only white land owning men could vote. Gee, that norrowed it down to just about those that were already vocal in politics.

[Xerxez]

Well duh, but that was over 200 years ago. the population was a lot smaller, and it was a bigger deal back then. they did just fight for their independence. 63 is over half. i really cant think of a place in the world today where over half of the people vote who are qualified.

OK.
.......In America everyone who vote are qualified you only have to be 18 and an American citizen. We just take it for granted nowadays because we don't really have a reason to vote like Iraq does. We are comfortist who just lay back and take everything in without changes. The House and Senate will be the same boring lawmaking bodies--nothing will change-- only little changes that wont really affect America as a whole. But it would take a long time to actually have order in Iraq to become as "civilized" as the US. Didn't they supposedly just won their independence. Look how long it took us.....
Lets look at America to fix our problems before we fix others..
Just look at our Presidential Election....Bush won (obviously because no other president was knocked out of office during a war.) But the nation was obviously divided and it still is...a little higher than 50% dosent insure Iraq wont have terrorist events nor does it insure peace or tranquility.


But Yes. You are right that it was a different time and place; you really cant compare them because there are a lot of variables to factor in...
BUT you have to factor in that in countries like Iraq, when people are divided they will use their religion and anger....such as Osama to support terrorism. Its a never-ending cycle...you can never win the war on terrorism. That's just stupid bush-talk. (There are alot of people who still support Saddam and Osama...and will try to do anything to stop elections ex. sudicidal bombing, killings ect).

Also, Like I said, Democratization will not necessarily bring economic growth, social peace, administrative efficiency, political harmony, or free markets to Iraq.
Thats all...

[Viper]

a little higher than 50% dosent insure Iraq wont have terrorist events nor does it insure peace or tranquility.
And neither will a 100% voter turnout. Most of the insurgents are not even of Iraqi heritage anyway. If they were, why would they blow up their own people and potential supporters, allies, buildings, infrastructure, etc...?


Again, you are still comparing Americas' rise to Democracy and Iraqs when they are not comparable events.


Slow economic growth?

"World Bank predicts 33% growth in Iraq"

"The bimonthly bulletin of the Dow Jones Group, “Iraq Reconstruction Report”, also states that this year could lead Iraq to have the fastest growing economy in the world. Millions of Iraqis are buying their first cell phones, satellite dishes, television sets, washing machines, air conditioners, cars, etc. Businesses are purchasing their first computers, mechanical diggers and all sorts of useful items.”


"The World Bank bases its optimism also on certain significant reforms which have been passed in Iraq related to “freeing up prices, simplifying taxes, getting rid of customs duties and deciding to introduce a flat 5% tax on all imports.” Moreover food, medicine, clothing and books are all exempt from customs duties. Monetary reform has led to a 25% improvement in the exchange rate for Iraqi currency with respect to the American dollar. "

"Economic growth in Iraq was estimated at 52% in 2004"

"Foley said signs of economic progress in Iraq are encouraging. He said business has picked up. In Baghdad, markets are full, new stores are opening daily, and there is a pent-up demand for consumer goods and services. He said the economy is "coming back pretty strongly."

[Xerxez]

....

[Viper]

Estimates aren't predictions.

[Xerxez]

And neither will a 100% voter turnout. Most of the insurgents are not even of Iraqi heritage anyway. If they were, why would they blow up their own people and potential supporters, allies, buildings, infrastructure, etc...?


Again, you are still comparing Americas' rise to Democracy and Iraqs when they are not comparable events.


Slow economic growth?

"World Bank predicts 33% growth in Iraq"

"The bimonthly bulletin of the Dow Jones Group, “Iraq Reconstruction Report”, also states that this year could lead Iraq to have the fastest growing economy in the world. Millions of Iraqis are buying their first cell phones, satellite dishes, television sets, washing machines, air conditioners, cars, etc. Businesses are purchasing their first computers, mechanical diggers and all sorts of useful items.”


"The World Bank bases its optimism also on certain significant reforms which have been passed in Iraq related to “freeing up prices, simplifying taxes, getting rid of customs duties and deciding to introduce a flat 5% tax on all imports.” Moreover food, medicine, clothing and books are all exempt from customs duties. Monetary reform has led to a 25% improvement in the exchange rate for Iraqi currency with respect to the American dollar. "

"Economic growth in Iraq was estimated at 52% in 2004"

"Foley said signs of economic progress in Iraq are encouraging. He said business has picked up. In Baghdad, markets are full, new stores are opening daily, and there is a pent-up demand for consumer goods and services. He said the economy is "coming back pretty strongly."

Ok.
Once again you do not understand what I am trying to say.
The most important of thoes is not economics but social peace and administrative efficiency. That is just a small but significant part of it.
What really matters to the Iraqis is not "...buying their first cell phones, satellite dishes, television sets, washing machines, air conditioners, cars, etc,"
but their social peace. The World Bank is a prediction, nothing based on fact.
What is "Economic growth in Iraq was estimated at 52% in 2004" without peace? Iraq was just liberated of their dictator Saddam. Of course the economics would rise...this has nothing to do with a democracy...Iraq already had 3 trillion dollars of oil reserves. America the "so-called" democracy with Imperialistic ideas. The only thing they want is world fame and precious oil. And from America "buying" oil from Iraq, I wonder why the economy is doing good. And look at the "hole" this president dug for us with this deficit...Programs that prevent HIV+ people from losing their homes and provide other life-saving services are already facing severe cutbacks during the current recession as a bloated military budget is given precedence over everything else. 100-200 billion dollars. That oil is looking pretty good now lol.

It's like the last thing the US has on its mind is peace. "First, lets throw our belifs onto Iraq that way they can be like us" mentality. These idealistic toughts are rubbish and imperialistic. For example, Iraq's storied stockpiles of weapons, the imaginary ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden--lie in disrepute, the Bush administration's new tack is to say the war was really about something else all along: democracy. The trouble is, the Iraqi people seem more interested in democracy than President Bush. Just three weeks ago, 10,000 Iraqis marched on the U.S.-installed governing council in Nasiriyah, just south of Baghdad, demanding that the U.S. appointees resign and that elections be immediately held. The Bush administration's response? Paul Bremer, U.S. head of the Iraq occupation, categorically declared that there will be no elections before the planned June "handover" of "sovereignty" to Iraqis. Which begs the question: are a people truly "sovereign" if they have no say in their country's future?

[plebben]

At least that dictator was chosen by the people.

Besides, do you honestly think we'll allow another ruthless dictator to rule Iraq after the efforts we just did?


Most Americans only knew monarchy rule 230 years ago. Why didn't we create a new monarchy?


Does any other nation besides America have the capability to do so? Does any other country receive the volume of aid requests, finanical and military, that America does?

It's a catch-22.
If we help, we're policing the world.
If we don't, we're selfics inconsiderate bastards.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We may as well help.

i agree with your point, im not saying what i posted is true or the way you should look at it. im just asking a question to perhaps make people think twice. Not nessesarily change their minds.

ponder this:

America is todays superpower. A democratic nation. Noone nation can challenge america. Naturally.
So america is the free nation above others. The only superpower. The beacon of freedom and morals some say.

But nothing lasts forever.

China is marching right up your ally.
The will become a superpower.
The have the potential to surpass america just by the brute strength of their population. They will catch up with technology. They will catch up economically.
However, they will porbably not catch up in amount of freedom.
If China wants to be able to be a superpower and stay that way democracy is a threat.
Democracy in china would lead to a total breakdown. The policestate of china is what keeps it a nation. Without the control it would split up into many nations.

So when china becomes the superpower in inevitably will become, will control still be seen as the bad thing it is today?
A bad nessecity for the greater good can often be accepted and be seen upon as good in the long run.

Im not saying control is good.

what i want to ask is if future generations will see it as good or bad.
Democracy is still an experiment. Its not a fact that democracy will stand the test of time. Even though we naturally would like to think so. After all, we're all indoctrinated by it just as much as Iranians are indoctrinated by their theocracy.
They see their way as the right way in the same way we see ours as the right.
So who can rightly say that "we define what is good"?
You libertated them on premisses of what you think is right.


Bottomline:

Should china be able to say that they have the right to overthrow states in the image of their form of government when they are in the same position as the US is today?
If the US in position of superpower claims the right to do so, shouldnt china also be able to do the same in the future? Or anyother potential candidate for superpowerhood...

[xbdestroya]

Well, I honestly don't think China would break up into many smaller nations - China has an extremely strong (thousands of years old) national and cultural identity. But it has always been ruled via an extremely strong central government, and the people seem not to mind if you ask them. Increased freedoms will come, but I think the Communist Party will likely be able to retain it's hold through it all. If not, there would certainly be a period of some chaos.

But yeah China is set up to be th enext superpower, of that there can be no doubt.

[Omega]

Wiping out thousands of Kurds with gas needs to be stopped, Plebben. No matter what the form of government is.

[xbdestroya]

Wiping out thousands of Kurds with gas needs to be stopped, Plebben. No matter what the form of government is.


What about killing hundreds of thousands with machetes and and guns? Does that also need to bstpped Aeon?

And I'll also point out that the gassing was stopped - after the first Gulf War.

[Omega]

Mass graves were found as freshly buried as 2001. I'll try to find the news source I read this in...

[plebben]

you totally missed my point aeon...
the question was not wether saddam was evil or not.

Also, no gasinging of kurds was stoped because of the american invasion.
The gasing of kurds was in 1988, it happened once and it wasnt something saddam was still doing in 2003 so your argument wouldnt be valid even if that was the question.

[The Dude]

the dude:


While the long term compatibility between democracy and capitalism does not seem in doubt, despite their serious tension, it is not clear whether the promotion of such liberal economic goals as the right of individuals to own property and refrain profits, the clearing function of markets, the private settlement of disputes, the freedom to produce without government regulation, or the privatization of state owned enterprises, necessarily furthers the consolidation of democracy.


You cannot have a democracy if people are not free. Having complete leasie-fare economics gives the individual power of freedom to pursue his own life as he sees fit. You can't have individual rights if you do not have property rights. Capitalism is the only rational form of economics that lets man live out to his full potential.

[Xerxez]

While the long term compatibility between democracy and capitalism does not seem in doubt, despite their serious tension, it is not clear whether the promotion of such liberal economic goals as the right of individuals to own property and refrain profits, the clearing function of markets, the private settlement of disputes, the freedom to produce without government regulation, or the privatization of state owned enterprises, necessarily furthers the consolidation of democracy. Which means these freedoms do not necessarily further consolidate democracy.

[plebben]

Monarcy is a form of governemnt, not a form of economics.

[Xerxez]

Ok. Changed it.

[Xerxez]

Well. Ok to this topic, I say because America is a world superpower; the strongest of all, then that means it gets to pick what type of government it wants to infuse into Iraq. If England was stronger then England would infuse their Constitutional Monarchy. They both have basicly the same freedoms, dont they? So we basicly use the "we are stronger and better mentality to "help" others. Why we are going to Iraq to form a democracy?
Its simple now. We think our system is the best the world has seen so we "force" others to use our system. If other superpowers thought our way was better, then China, England, and all countries of Asia, including Russia, would change. Since we are powerful and are, which some say, the policemen of the world, we have to be there before any counrty to higher our reputation and we have to influence our imperialistic ideas on others.

Any other Ideas?

[plebben]

England would not infues constitutional monarchy.
The monarchy of england is only there as a tradition.
The queen or king of england has no real political power.
Actually they have more power than any other european monarchy but still its only a monarchy for the show.

In that view a constitutional monarchy wouldnt be interesting to infuse on anyone, because the less monarchies in the world the more uniqe the british one would be = more tourism and curiousity around the british monarchy.

Yes you think your system is the best.
But the deeper question is, does that matter?
Because with the western world of thinking, equality is righteous.
If we claim our way of thinking is the right and they should listen to us without complaining because we are stronger, ask your self: would you do the same if a communiststate was the leading superpower of the world?
If China in the future grows stronger than america, would you accept that they infuse their policestate socialist/communist thinking onto others only because they are the strongest power?

If you dont like that idea why do you accept what your own people are doing?

Again, im not saying america is doing anything wrong in its strive to liberate the people of Iraq.

Im asking if anyone should have the right to play God over other nations?

The other idea would obviously be to peacefully try to convince the people to change, not force them with military might.

[Ihsiin]

The monarchy of England is just a show. Technically, the Queen has the power to a whole load of things, but if she tried any of them the government would out her straight away. I sometimes wonder whether it would be better if power was restored to the monarchy. Not the current monarchy, obviously, but the pre-Norman kings of England. I can't imagine it would be too hard to trace their decedents.

So.

Spreading democracy sounds an awful lot like imperialism. No one has the right to force their ideas, beliefs or structures of government on anyone. This fable that democracy is the structure of government above all other structures of government is an annoying one, to say the very least.

[Xerxez]

Yes.

[Viper]

Spreading democracy sounds an awful lot like imperialism. No one has the right to force their ideas, beliefs or structures of government on anyone. This fable that democracy is the structure of government above all other structures of government is an annoying one, to say the very least.


Think of it this way. It wasn't Democracy we gave them but the right of choice.

As with all Democracies if the people want a change to a different government, they can. They can completely wipe the government out and instill a new one. You cannot get that with any other government. If in the end the Iraqi people want a socialistic state, then so be it, but it was the democratic notions that allowed for that to happen.

You people are so busy thinking of the now that you fail to understand the implications of the future. We give them Democracy now, they can be whatever they like tomorrow. Give them anything else and they are stick with it...again.

[plebben]

Very good point.
Yet the action from americas side has costed many innocent Iraqies their lives. Lots of american and british soldiers have also died.
If it goes back to undemocratic socialism the question is if it was worth the human sacrifice?
"We didnt know" isnt a very good excuse if it ends up there.

If it cant be improved, dont try to improve it.
In this case we do not know if it can be improved, is it, once again, worth the sacrifice in human lives to explore if it is?

[Viper]

Sometimes it's better to try and fail than to do nothing and fail.

[plebben]

I agree.
But thats also easy to say when youre safe in your house. not threatened by war.
Youd probably have a different opinion if you were iraqie, had half your family wiped out by either american troops or insurgents, and read this.
Dont you think?

[Ihsiin]

Think of it this way. It wasn't Democracy we gave them but the right of choice.

As with all Democracies if the people want a change to a different government, they can. They can completely wipe the government out and instill a new one. You cannot get that with any other government. If in the end the Iraqi people want a socialistic state, then so be it, but it was the democratic notions that allowed for that to happen.

You people are so busy thinking of the now that you fail to understand the implications of the future. We give them Democracy now, they can be whatever they like tomorrow. Give them anything else and they are stick with it...again.

Be that as it may, spreading democracy isn't a just cause to go to war. George bush should never have mentioned it. But then if he hadn't, would have fooled over half of the American nation in favour of the war? Perhaps not.

[Loc]

It's all about "National Interest". The United States is a market-driven country. There is market potential in Iraq, so we invade it to secure the market. The only time we've ever cared about spreading democracy was during the Cold War, but since that is now over, I still don't see a huge reason to remain in Iraq. Sure the country is incredibly unstabled, we have to leave it up to the citizens themselves to police the terrorists, we can't just baby them forever.

[plebben]

Oh, but you have to.

God didnt stop being God when his servants didnt follow his ruling, right?

[kaphwan]

England did impose their government type on other nations. Colonialism, anyone?

To respond the the topic question, we are going to Iraq to create a democracy because we think that's best for them. Who knows? In a century's time this might have worked and Iraq would be remembered as the first of many successful forced democracies.

[plebben]

1. Yes they did... 200 years ago.

2. Germany already stole the grand prize.

[Bryan]

The Iraqi people should run their own country, but when is that going to really start?

[Xerxes]

Yes. : )

[guitar_czar!]

To make this post I simply read evefry psot starting on page one after finding this thread after stayin up till 11:32 p.m. and not visiting this board in quite awhile if ever..if it dont' make sense go back and read what you wrote..see if it al makes sense to you then. I ain't perfect andi'm getting paranoia typing so much so i'm done now.

Xerez unless they got you confused I agree wtih you more than any other peeps here so far..it jsut seemed like Vipers posts would contradict your so yeah..

Sure, If that is what the people want. Only 63% of voters in Iraq voted.
The other percentage is obviously still angry for "World Ruler Bush" reconstructing Iraq into something THEY dont believe in. Democracies come from religion... Most European governments are Monarchy (God is supreme..Bla Blah)and so forth.
This is where my idea comes in. Bottomline: America should help themselves before they can help others.
Iraq has been this form of government for a loooong while...so why now change it?
Just because one person says its OK?? For the oil?? To make ourselves feel better??
I believe Iraqis should pick what form of government to use not to pick some hand picked candidates that Bush picked so he can squeeze the oil out of the country.

Just because Democracy works for one country doesn't mean it will work for others, especially Iraq's.
That is what is wrong with the US...People think that their way is the best way when it is not necessarially. There is no good or evil government....there is only perspective.
So why should Iraq follow the ideals of the US?

All governments have the possibility of failure....But why not let the people pick the form of government they want?


This is where my idea comes in. Bottomline: America should help themselves before they can help others.

Yes I have taken your posts from page one and especially the one line above I like but idk if it's right..

By the Dude:Government should only have a monopoly on physical force (law inforcement) and in a society were individual rights are the basis of the law, the government would not be able to violate them. Remember the individual is the greatest minority in any given country, who is fighting for his rights?

Do you not know how scary that is "Government should only have a monopoly on physical force(law inforcement) and in a society were individual rights are the basis...." Yeah by these posts it's eventually coming down to a matrix type thing or somthing..at least against' all Christians nto just Jews one day..though i'm sure someone will try and say "thre are plenty others just so u know"

Eventually the world WILL unite for one casue. Perhaps it's actually for one FEAR. I may not be "Christ LIke" but I believe everything the bible says..fire away I expect missles all the time.

By plebben:What if they in the end choose to elect a new dictator?
Then all america did was to kill a lot of iraqies, who in most cases didnt know anything else than to fight the invaders, in order to establish a freedom that was only an illusion created by the american dream.

Most of the people in this country doesnt know anything else than living under a dictatorship.

Just something to ponder over.

Does any one nation have the right to play that God-role america has?
In response to: Originally Posted by Viper
Think of it this way, we didn't give Iraq Democracy, we gave them freedom of choice.

They prabably will elect a new dictator try the whole "Benevolent King" thing Zach Bell has going on YES I REALIZE THEY DON"T HAVE KINGS..

Oh and OF COURSE..NO nation has the right to play the Role of God. that's just stupid.

Viper:

Quote:
Originally Posted by plebben
What if they in the end choose to elect a new dictator?


At least that dictator was chosen by the people.

Besides, do you honestly think we'll allow another ruthless dictator to rule Iraq after the efforts we just did?



Quote:
Most of the people in this country doesnt know anything else than living under a dictatorship.


Most Americans only knew monarchy rule 230 years ago. Why didn't we create a new monarchy?



Quote:
Does any one nation have the right to play that God-role america has?

Does any other nation besides America have the capability to do so? Does any other country receive the volume of aid requests, finanical and military, that America does?

It's a catch-22.
If we help, we're policing the world.
If we don't, we're selfics inconsiderate bastards.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We may as well help.

In response to the last line..NO WE ARE BETTER OFF IF WE ODN'T. You may have to take me on faith on that one..WHICH I AHVE :). We are better off not to..kinda like Christmas around my house..they make fun of me call me a scrooge..well I don't like dirty santa clause music,,even If i had a girl to celebrate with I WOULD NOT give in to this FAKE christmas thign they have goign with "happy holidays" *btw if it's just a holiday we are lazy are we not?* and their santa clause. Well eventually someone wil ask me about it and I can say "Becuase that's not waht Christmas is, .." I can say "It's Christ's Birthday, do not worship him, worship his God, the Father." In Revalations or somewhere when the saints are in heaven and they bow to Jesus, he tells us not to because he's our brethren in Heavenly worship *of God* The same one no country should try to be. Obviously that gets into some believe issues since believeing is not something you can be foreced to do, nor is it something which God would make us do "The kingdom of Heaven shall not be taken by force."

Aye, America has something, we going to set it down to help? Whatever it is it has even my head's a little shaky to say right now though I know it must have at least Originated in teh bible, even if not wholy biblicaly so now, and is not worht putting down..

Before any one says "you knowit wasn't all God who built this country/nation" anything like that. Don't you think he could have kept if from happening all the same?

Eh more in the same post by VIper:
Does any other nation besides America have the capability to do so? Does any other country receive the volume of aid requests, finanical and military, that America does?

He is talkign abotu policing not helping. You don't have to be God to help somebody though it's an act of love if done unselfishly and there fore originates from God, not saying our country is, though it's obvious that at least some of us must have come into God to do so. Human nature alone is selfish and pessimistic. *God is not somethign the weak unhopefull pessimistic people kling to either, He's someone who opens their eyes to who they are, or that is what they are their human selves.*

heh now i'm just being mean here must have been hanging otu here to long..
I'm sure you'll be able to come up with somethign to this rebuttal of mine.

Viper:Most Americans only knew monarchy rule 230 years ago. Why didn't we create a new monarchy?

We "American's" freed ourselves for the most part right? We were not forced into it ...you know idk if it wouldn't happened if not for some writeres in Europe and perhaps other parts of the world..from waht I learn we got help from teh french when we "asked" for it..right?? and we used the philisophical views of other writers outside our own nation..

Justplain and simple waht our textbooks tell me AMerica freed itself but Iraq did not.

Xerez:Its a never-ending cycle...you can never win the war on terrorism. That's just stupid bush-talk. (There are alot of people who still support Saddam and Osama...and will try to do anything to stop elections ex. sudicidal bombing, killings ect).

now i'm tearing, the war on terrorism will be over,,at least on the sense of normality or politics..see it'll be over when the events in revelations occur..quite litterally we'll all be sitting in front of the dragon, and I dont' know if this is before or after the Christians are taken out..I migth should shut up by now for my own lack of knowledge and i'm sure you are begginign to see some of my flaws develop "bassically lack of the knowledge I know is true" but I'll keep going.

As you can see I don't have all the answers but God does. I'm sorry I can't quote you anything extremely usefull, or better yet the whole book in the most extreme of humblness..

Cuz I never shutup..Xerez:The World Bank is a prediction, nothing based on fact.


Now I wonder first I agreed, then i thought well idnno, then I thought "money is the root of all evel" *this i was taught before i was taught anything Christian or Biblical or anything else religous..just about when i was like six or something idk in early school grades..by my older sister :).

More Zerez:It's like the last thing the US has on its mind is peace. "First, lets throw our belifs onto Iraq that way they can be like us" mentality. These idealistic toughts are rubbish and imperialistic. For example, Iraq's storied stockpiles of weapons, the imaginary ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden--lie in disrepute, the Bush administration's new tack is to say the war was really about something else all along: democracy. The trouble is, the Iraqi people seem more interested in democracy than President Bush. Just three weeks ago, 10,000 Iraqis marched on the U.S.-installed governing council in Nasiriyah, just south of Baghdad, demanding that the U.S. appointees resign and that elections be immediately held. The Bush administration's response? Paul Bremer, U.S. head of the Iraq occupation, categorically declared that there will be no elections before the planned June "handover" of "sovereignty" to Iraqis. Which begs the question: are a people truly "sovereign" if they have no say in their country's future?

Reading it the whole paragraph didn't seem to have the whole feel as the best, but over half of it was great or the best..the end was totally right on back to what you were saying in teh first place and I agree with you toally..Idunno all yet about the whole "done it for oil thing" but it's really easy to say when my daddy works with Muslims sometimes and Iraqi's *i dunno anymore cuz he started his own small company* and i have lost entire days at school and been harsh to people and lost love and not been able to work and become callased and cold wondering what i'd do if they shot my dad thsoe radical Muslims, or any muslim who is holding to his faith or "religion" since after all those that worship Allah and i thnk it's the Koron hold it as a ticket to heaven to kill a Christian *christ like* . Guess to them it's ok for Christ to be himself but for anyone to imitate him tehy say "hey be yourself *bang* " and they dont' want to hear it..suckups it sounds like to me though i am equally guilty as they.

This bit of worrry is ending my life..a few months ago especally in guitar playing I always figured originallity was key and that was the best way..i still do but now I find myself playing solo to three doors down songs and not replying to a single female, even the one i love if you saw me right now i will say i am caloused, yet abotu to cry, and i don't know all the answers only i'd ebter keep writing otherwise i'l be mad at that I can't break down and the wortsd are starting to maek less since when i focus on teh madding self that is my being concious whatever..If any one of you believes in God pray for me..I know someone has been and i'm thankfull but I can't imagine why i'm being taken care off...this is the kind of stuff kids get in trouble for trying to deal with..


by plebben: China is marching right up your ally.
The will become a superpower.
The have the potential to surpass america just by the brute strength of their population. They will catch up with technology. They will catch up economically.
However, they will porbably not catch up in amount of freedom.
If China wants to be able to be a superpower and stay that way democracy is a threat.
Democracy in china would lead to a total breakdown. The policestate of china is what keeps it a nation. Without the control it would split up into many nations.

So when china becomes the superpower in inevitably will become, will control still be seen as the bad thing it is today?
A bad nessecity for the greater good can often be accepted and be seen upon as good in the long run.

Im not saying control is good.

what i want to ask is if future generations will see it as good or bad.
Democracy is still an experiment. Its not a fact that democracy will stand the test of time. Even though we naturally would like to think so. After all, we're all indoctrinated by it just as much as Iranians are indoctrinated by their theocracy.
They see their way as the right way in the same way we see ours as the right.
So who can rightly say that "we define what is good"?
You libertated them on premisses of what you think is right.


Bottomline:

Should china be able to say that they have the right to overthrow states in the image of their form of government when they are in the same position as the US is today?
If the US in position of superpower claims the right to do so, shouldnt china also be able to do the same in the future? Or anyother potential candidate for superpowerhood...

Eh just cuz U.S. claims somethign wrongfully doesnt' mean China should do so..why shouldn't we since we are as you asy currently the "strongest" and whatever..cuz well it's jsut pure idiociy..i dont' have a full reason but we know it's not right. It's just a bully is the closest thign I can come up with now. Lord of the Flies almost..

Anyways It would be suprising btu i'd have to say "well what'd you expect" later if waht you say happened..just one possible way the whole "white mans day shall come" thing could happen..assuming that hte majority of America is caucasion or somthing..idk white is white if not then we might not be the poorest country inteh world,, more like the second or third :( *cry face* *nowstrong resolve face*

I have to stop at this one since I dont' understand it all, but I seemed to agree with omegas post after

[plebben]

My point was that righteousness is in the eye of the beholder.
You as an american or rather western world citizen heed to a moral that defines certain things as right.
Other cultures have different morals that define whats right.
So who are you to demand "your" right?
Youre not gonna accept Chinas potential decision to invade Vietnam.
Why, then, should others accept your decision to invade Iraq?

Im just asking a question. It is not directly an attack on americas action in Iraq.
More like a philosophical question.
And a classic one, I should add.

[Xerxes]

So America's invasion in Iraq was the best thing for the world?

[Coded-Dude]

So America's invasion in Iraq was the best thing for the world?
Depends on who you ask; If promoting Freedom and Democracy in opressive countries is not best thing for the world then, maybe we're wrong. Of course the agenda sometimes gets lost in the cracks due to blind ambition and greed of money and power. :crazy2: