NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been many complaints from critics within America and around the world that America is imposing its version of Democracy on other countries and that this is inherently wrong.
But my observations have told me that there are very few if any elements of AMERICAN democracy in Iraq's on composition today.

The existance of a Prime Minister
A REPRESENTATIVE legistlative body
Mulitiple Vice Presidents
Religious afliated political parties possibly working toward non-secular government structure.

All these occurances are clearly herisey in an American versions of Democracy, so what exactly is the argument that America is pushing ITS version of Democracy...

The only other argument that could exists is that it is wrong to push Democracy on cultures that have never experianced it before.. But in the culture of the arabs and in the middle east they have been ruled by Dictators and Monarchs since the dawn of time. Democracy is the only governmental structure which empowers people and gives freedoms. So if socieities are so brutually controled that they are unable to bring about this change, or simply have no knowledge of it.. is it wrong then to expose them to Democracy and help them acheive it by removing suppressive governments. There are few dicitorial governments in the world today which one could say the PEOPLE actually support rather then being FORCED to support.

It's a hard question to answer. In one sense, yes, we did force democracy on them (we did after all invade and overthrow their government, illegitimate though it was), but on the other hand, the nature of democracy will allow them to choose another form of government, should the choose (i.e. electing a communist or Islamic party).

So, while we did foricbly bring choice to them, the existence of that ability to choose will allow them to decide for themselves whether or not they want to keep it.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the ones we've already tried." If anyone knows the right quote, that would be cool to share it.

At this stage, no. It resembles many parlimentary democracies right now. However, a new constitution will be written soon, and a lot of countries have modeled theirs on the US's. Pretty soon, they may have a president, a vice president, a bicameral congress, and a Supreme Court.

I don't know what our version of 'Democracy' is. We're a Republic that doesn't follow our own Constitution (to a high degree).

Their government we'll resemble Israel's country a little more than ours. They have a proportional means of representation..we're past the post. They'll likely have a socialist leaning,...like Israel. They're Constitution will likely reflect those 'right'. Not individual in nature, but whatever.

So if socieities are so brutually controled that they are unable to bring about this change, or simply have no knowledge of it.. is it wrong then to expose them to Democracy and help them acheive it by removing suppressive governments.
To answer your question....YES it is wrong.

To answer your question....YES it is wrong.

I don't want to start a huge debate, but I'm curious?

Why is it wrong to free people from an oppresive regime?

Why not implement a system that is better? The American system is not perfect, you have major problems in your own country. Fix the problems or better the system to make a more 'friendly' government system in Iraq and other nations you are going to attack.

Why not implement a system that is better? The American system is not perfect, you have major problems in your own country. Fix the problems or better the system to make a more 'friendly' government system in Iraq and other nations you are going to attack.

A system better than democracy? Out of curiosity, what would that be?

A system better than democracy? Out of curiosity, what would that be?

American Democracy. The Democracys in the Nordic nations is in many ways better then that of America and other nations have better systems too.

American Democracy. The Democracys in the Nordic nations is in many ways better then that of America and other nations have better systems too.

How so?

I don't mean to be obtuse, I really am curious.

How so?

I don't mean to be obtuse, I really am curious.

Health Care System
Agriculture System
Education System
Environment System

Take your pick.
http://www.government.is/

How so?

I don't mean to be obtuse, I really am curious.

Over there it's known as hippie-terrorist-pinko-communism

Of course, America is not a democracy, neither are those Nordic nation we are all so envious of. Lord knows I too want a 60% tax rate and an economy ranked somewhere in the low 100's in the world. Yes yes, I understand the Fins make nice cell phones (about two years behind technologically, I live in Japan and they won't even look at a Nokia) There are no democracies in the world, thank God. The one democracy that existed, Athens, was a shambles. They constantly started wars with their neighbors. Sparta, that horrible totalitarian city-state constantly had to clean up Athen's messes.
I think we should let the nations upon whom a representative form of government has been imposed decide if they like it or not. Germany seems to love their imposed government, Japan as well. Or have we all forgotten they didn't exactly choose what they have now, that we kinda pushed it down their throats.

Of course, America is not a democracy, neither are those Nordic nation we are all so envious of. Lord knows I too want a 60% tax rate and an economy ranked somewhere in the low 100's in the world. Yes yes, I understand the Fins make nice cell phones (about two years behind technologically, I live in Japan and they won't even look at a Nokia) There are no democracies in the world, thank God. The one democracy that existed, Athens, was a shambles. They constantly started wars with their neighbors. Sparta, that horrible totalitarian city-state constantly had to clean up Athen's messes.
I think we should let the nations upon whom a representative form of government has been imposed decide if they like it or not. Germany seems to love their imposed government, Japan as well. Or have we all forgotten they didn't exactly choose what they have now, that we kinda pushed it down their throats.

You lost me on that one.

Which part?

America and Scandinavia not being democracies...
No democracies in the world (thank God?)...
Athens and Sparta...
The innuendo that Germany and Japan hate the governments the US forced on them...after defeating their fascist leaders...

There are no true democracies in the world. We have republics and parlimentarian style governments. Those are not democracies.

I meant that Japan and Germany like their governments, which the allies forced on them. So maybe forcing governements on nations somnetimes works.

Athens constantly made trouble for her neighbors, Sparta constantly had to go north and put a stop to Athen's antics. Athens did this because they were a true democracy, 1 vote from everyone on every issue facing the city-state, people collectively are very stupid and react without thinking.

There are no true democracies in the world. We have republics and parlimentarian style governments. Those are not democracies.

I meant that Japan and Germany like their governments, which the allies forced on them. So maybe forcing governements on nations somnetimes works.

Athens constantly made trouble for her neighbors, Sparta constantly had to go north and put a stop to Athen's antics. Athens did this because they were a true democracy, 1 vote from everyone on every issue facing the city-state, people collectively are very stupid and react without thinking.

Oh, I see what you mean. That makes more sense now, thanks. But could you consider Athens a true democracy? Only free, property-owning, adult men could vote. And for the most part, only a small fraction of those even showed up to vote on issues.

w00t. 1000th post. I have no life :rolleyes:

True true, Athens would then be the closest we have had to a true democracy, but not a real one.

NO! We did force Democracy on them but it wasnt our type of Democracy so the answer to your question is NO, however if the question was "Did we force Democracy on Iraq?" Than the answer would be yeeeep.

I don't post very often, tends to make me nervous. I like to read debates but taking part is a bit frightening. Yes, I am a wimp that way. Just don't like it when people get angry at each other. Oh well, it has been interesting. I gotta go to my Japanese lesson and work. My wife it waving her coffee cup at me and threatening to destroy the computer. Thank for the exchange.

I learned something today...makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...or that might be the enchilada from yesterday. Hard to tell sometimes.

Health Care System
Agriculture System
Education System
Environment System

Take your pick.
http://www.government.is/


They actually have a freer economy than America. The taxes seem lower as well. With a military expenditure of 0, I would think they have plenty of money for distribution. Too different worlds I suppose.

Though their heavily dependant on their fish industry. It employs 12% of their population, so they need to diversify. I wouldn't mind America being a little less involved in the war of the worlds...but perhaps we're too late to change that.

http://www.travelblog.org/World/ic-mil.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Iceland

They actually have a freer economy than America. The taxes seem lower as well. With a military expenditure of 0, I would think they have plenty of money for distribution. Too different worlds I suppose.

Though their heavily dependant on their fish industry. It employs 12% of their population, so they need to diversify. I wouldn't mind America being a little less involved in the war of the worlds...but perhaps we're too late to change that.

http://www.travelblog.org/World/ic-mil.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Iceland

Well we do not have a military in that sence but we do have the Republican Coast Gaurd and we do have Gunboats, Planes and Helicopters in the nations service.
The nation is dependant on fish products but that will change to the Travel Industry very soon because of small fish stocks.
Travel Blog is not really accurate for eg. we speak Icelandic and only Icelandic the site makes it sound like we speak many languages here. We only speak foreagn languages to outsiders that come to visit because the chance of them understnding Icelandic is very small.
America could let the world be and make it's military smaller and thus spend more on the citizens.

Well we do not have a military in that sence but we do have the Republican Coast Gaurd and we do have Gunboats, Planes and Helicopters in the nations service.
The nation is dependant on fish products but that will change to the Travel Industry very soon because of small fish stocks.
Travel Blog is not really accurate for eg. we speak Icelandic and only Icelandic the site makes it sound like we speak many languages here. We only speak foreagn languages to outsiders that come to visit because the chance of them understnding Icelandic is very small.
America could let the world be and make it's military smaller and thus spend more on the citizens.

I was just using it [travel blog] as a general reference. I'm sure it doesn't have the specifics.

And yes, I think America should lessen it's role in being the police of the world. I don't know if either party here will do that, though.

I don't want to start a huge debate, but I'm curious?

Why is it wrong to free people from an oppresive regime?
Better to support dictators isn't it? I will give you two names:

General Suharto (Indonesia)

Augusto Pinochet (Chile)

US foreign policy makes one wonder?

And yes, I think America should lessen it's role in being the police of the world.

Nothing would make me happier, personally. Won't happen, though. No matter how much we wish to leave the world alone, the world will not leave us alone.

FUN FACTS OF THE DAY:

America is not a democracy. It never has been.

In fact, the Framers of the American Constitution put a great deal of time and effort into ensuring that America would never degenerate into a democracy. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights.

The word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence.

Yet for some reason, Americans have long seemed driven to "bring democracy" to various nations and peoples around the world. Ask an American school child what sort of government their nation has, and they will tell you it's a democracy 9 times out of 10. Ask an American voter to give synonyms for "democracy" and their first suggestion will be "freedom" 95% of the time. Never mind that pure democracy is antithetical to actual freedom for all people, and never mind that the Framers knew that damn well and spent years crafting a system of government that could avoid the oppression inherent in exclusively democratic systems.

Isn't it odd how we Americans are so eager to give democracy to other nations, when we've never wanted it for ourselves?

It begs the eternal question:

Is forcing democracy upon a nation democratic?

The answer in my opinion is probably no.

You see America doesn't understand that for democracy to work, the country requires a rock solid base. And I mean rock solid. The way to get a rock solid base? Gentle but steady progression from a dictatorship/absolute monarchy to an enlightened despot to a partial parliament/constitutional monarch to a democracy. That way the democracy is based on age old institutions that have been tried and tested in war. Such is the way of British democracy. You can't remain the same forever - look what happened to France and Russia after they maintained centuries of feudalism without any change to accomodate the middle classes. You need gentle, steady progression - sudden change only creates instability which is no good for a new democracy whatsoever.

In Iraq they have had too much change. There has been no long lasting stability which is why democracy will fail as it will in Afghanistan as soon as it comes under the slightest pressure. The best way for Iraq to have evolved may have been to leave it under Saddam...

The reason why Athens "Invaded" Sparta was cultural; Greeks in general never accepted the other Greeks nearby. They were and still kinda are paranoid of each other. Don't get them started. I could write a huge paper on the ideological differences between them, but no. According to Athenian ideologies, only Athenian peoples were truely Greek, every one else happened to speak Greek dialects. Spartans were at the time, the most feared peoples on earth. Even Roman generals hesitated at encountering them-Roman losses were enormous compared to the relatively small Spartan losses. They were brutally efficient. That's why during the Pelopenesian wars, Xerxes of Persia gave Athens and Sparta boats and weaponry to weaken each other to wipe each of them off the map.

Athens was almost completely a democracy. In its heyday, The Greek Golden Age, there werent officially government buildings, but podiums where people would complain or rally for or against something. There weren't true leaders, unless during times of war, someone could become a general figure. But if that person stayed in that position for too long, the people were allowed, even expected to remove that person in anyway possible-ie kill. During this time, everything good that we know of Greeks was made at this time. Aristotle, Plato, Eucidites, the list goes on and on. Plays that Shakespeare used Greek themes to make his.

But all in all, I don't care about what government goes in as long as we dont screw the country in the case of Vietnam.

Athens was almost completely a democracy. In its heyday, The Greek Golden Age, there werent officially government buildings, but podiums where people would complain or rally for or against something. There weren't true leaders, unless during times of war, someone could become a general figure. But if that person stayed in that position for too long, the people were allowed, even expected to remove that person in anyway possible-ie kill. During this time, everything good that we know of Greeks was made at this time. Aristotle, Plato, Eucidites, the list goes on and on. Plays that Shakespeare used Greek themes to make his.


It was almost a democracy, though weren't only free Athenian men of a certain age (late 20's or 30's? I can't remember) allowed to vote on issues? Women, young men and slaves had less say in political affairs. . . But its been a while since I read up on it

The guidelines were: males over the age of 30, I believe, and you had to have very basic knowledge of the government in order to vote. Slaves, by any country's definition aren't people. They rarely were even measured in census figures. Think of the US coming up with the 2/3 clause; slaves were considered .66 of a man. But Athens did not have many slaves, estimates in the thousands. But slaves were treated very well. Slaves were given free education, as well as apprenticeship to become a master in a given field. They also were labor for police and other municipal forces.

It begs the eternal question:

Is forcing democracy upon a nation democratic?

The answer in my opinion is probably no.

You see America doesn't understand that for democracy to work, the country requires a rock solid base. And I mean rock solid. The way to get a rock solid base? Gentle but steady progression from a dictatorship/absolute monarchy to an enlightened despot to a partial parliament/constitutional monarch to a democracy. That way the democracy is based on age old institutions that have been tried and tested in war. Such is the way of British democracy. You can't remain the same forever - look what happened to France and Russia after they maintained centuries of feudalism without any change to accomodate the middle classes. You need gentle, steady progression - sudden change only creates instability which is no good for a new democracy whatsoever.

In Iraq they have had too much change. There has been no long lasting stability which is why democracy will fail as it will in Afghanistan as soon as it comes under the slightest pressure. The best way for Iraq to have evolved may have been to leave it under Saddam...


In fact, the British democracy is one of a kind. This so called progression from dictatorship to monarchy to parlimentary system has not occured for over 80% of all the democracies world wide, including the first .. America's. France (above all else suffering the worst civil war), Germany, United States, Spain (even though this is questionable even today), Italy (especially), India, Russia ... etc. None of these had the ROCK SOLID base you so describe... Yet Democracy Insued. In fact Even America's democracy was not won without outside influcenses .. It is not a new tardition to have other countries facilitate the overthrow of a repressive regime to instill the "Opprotunity" for Democracy. In the end, democracy only works if the people really want it to.. and thus far, its clear Iraq wants democracy.. despite the claims American's are forcing it down their throght.. If you think about it logically... why would anyone choose a repressive dictatorship/monarchy over a system in which the people held the power .

... And how often do you question the French Democracy, a democracy which when through 12 different consitutions before finding stability. Which found democracy through the bloodiest of revolutions. In fact.. it is Britian who actually does not have a Democracy, since Ownership of the state still lies in the name of the Queen. Though remaining as a puppet figure, unable to make legislation herself, no legislation is passed without her approval though she is unelected. The only benifit to this clear REPUBLIC is that it was acheived seemlingly through a bloodless revolution...

And to the note that America is not a democracy... Whoever said Direct Democracy was the only type of Democracy.. We have a representative democarcy, where the people hold the power and simply select represenatitves to make the law in thier place.

It begs the eternal question:

Is forcing democracy upon a nation democratic?

The answer in my opinion is probably no.

You see America doesn't understand that for democracy to work, the country requires a rock solid base. And I mean rock solid. The way to get a rock solid base? Gentle but steady progression from a dictatorship/absolute monarchy to an enlightened despot to a partial parliament/constitutional monarch to a democracy. That way the democracy is based on age old institutions that have been tried and tested in war. Such is the way of British democracy. You can't remain the same forever - look what happened to France and Russia after they maintained centuries of feudalism without any change to accomodate the middle classes. You need gentle, steady progression - sudden change only creates instability which is no good for a new democracy whatsoever.

In Iraq they have had too much change. There has been no long lasting stability which is why democracy will fail as it will in Afghanistan as soon as it comes under the slightest pressure. The best way for Iraq to have evolved may have been to leave it under Saddam...
Yuppers. I tend to agree with what you have posted. Although Saddam was somewhat of a tyrant, he at least was more of a moderate type in regards to the fundamentalist approach taken by say Iran.

The US helped Saddam while he was in power, by removing Iraq from the list of terrorist nations, offering diplomatic recognition, supplying WMD or equivalent technologies, and turned a blind eye to his use of chemicals against Iranian forces. Saddam helped America to extract revenge for the Iranian hostage taking incident. Who was in power in the US during those years? Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Then came the double cross, when the US supplied arms to Iran to help push back Saddam who was on the verge of taking over Iran. If this hadn't happened, perhaps the US could have worked with Saddam in gradually shifting the politics of the region to more of a western style democracy once Iran had fallen.

What has the US got to show for its' efforts in the region? Two wars, troops installed in Iraq, increased debt, and Iran developing nuclear weapons. However, the US now has the ability to control the most important prizes in all of this.....OIL, and control of the Iraqi economy through Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations)!!

I am sure that if democracy flourishes in Iraq, that would be a bonus to the US, but certainly was not the prime mandate.

Interesting that while the main topic of conversation has been weather or not America is a democracy, the majority of people have chosen that America is imposing its version of Democracy on Iraq... while seemingly making no case for it, despite the conflicts I brought up.. Look past your partisanship and try to answer the question logically and rationally. Is the we will say REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY we are helping IRAQ today acheive the same version REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY America maintains

Yuppers. I tend to agree with what you have posted. Although Saddam was somewhat of a tyrant, he at least was more of a moderate type in regards to the fundamentalist approach taken by say Iran.


minus the rest of the argument which has no bearing on the topic at hand (partisan hack which i could drive a stake through) I will respond to this one.

You assume that the opprotunity exists for Iraqi citzens to choose weather or not to have a democracy through a revolution.. but for those under brutal dictatorships bombarded by propoganda, and who have never known the idea of democracy or the rule of the people in their history.. it is hard to imagine how they would facilitate this revolution without outside influcences..

and the process by which New British Glory described is only representative of the British system (which does not even reflect a democracy since primary authority (and even the property of the state) still lies (all be it symbolicially) in the name of the Queen) an exception among all other representative democracies.. Infact no other democracy was acheived without the use of revolution to overthrow the existing government. And just as America's revolution was supplmented by outside forces... so America helps to facilitate this same revolution in other nations unable to achevie it through thier own means.

And to the note that America is not a democracy... Whoever said Direct Democracy was the only type of Democracy.. We have a representative democarcy, where the people hold the power and simply select represenatitves to make the law in thier place.


It's called a Republic. The word democracy is not in the Constitution, nor do the founders perceive it that way. People have increasingly called it that, to make people feel 'empowered', and thus bring about delusions to the idea that we have unalienable rights that CAN'T be voted away or perhaps I should say 'shouldn't' be voted away.

Stop calling it a democracy. If one read the Federalist (which is the basis of the Constitution), they couldn't dare call it that. If you want to call it something valid, call it the:

Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition;

Atleast you wouldn't make the founders cry.

minus the rest of the argument which has no bearing on the topic at hand (partisan hack which i could drive a stake through) I will respond to this one.
Partisan hack? I think not. Clearly I was addressing the movement of Iraq’s governance (under Saddam) more towards western roots as opposed to the more fundamentalist views of the region. It is that you cannot see the correlation?

You assume that the opprotunity exists for Iraqi citzens to choose weather or not to have a democracy through a revolution.. but for those under brutal dictatorships bombarded by propoganda, and who have never known the idea of democracy or the rule of the people in their history.. it is hard to imagine how they would facilitate this revolution without outside influcences..
How does one force democracy on people who at the core, disagree with your ideals and beliefs? Right now, Iraq is under military law as directed through Bremer’s Orders, which also includes a hi-jacking of the Iraqi economy. How do you expect this new found “democracy” to flourish when outside interests can steal the finances that could be used to pave the way to a more prosperous Iraq? Speaking of “propaganda”….this whole Iraqi exercise has been one of misguided, and misleading “propaganda”.

Infact no other democracy was acheived without the use of revolution to overthrow the existing government.
So the US provided the “revolution” that they believe that the Iraqi people wanted? The Shiites just love America….yeah okay. :rolleyes: Oh and the Sunnis just love America....of course. :rolleyes: Perhaps you have lost sight of why the US is in Iraq in the first place?

And just as America's revolution was supplmented by outside forces... so America helps to facilitate this same revolution in other nations unable to achevie it through thier own means.
All well and fine, as long as, the Iraqi people want what the US has to offer. IMHO, I do not believe that the people of Iraq are looking for western style democracy at this time. There are just too many fundamental differences between the two cultures. By trying to impose your style of democracy on them through use of force, oppression, and occupation, you open yourself to reprisals and condemnation. I have also seen the results of other countries who have had support of the US administration to help spread democracy, such as Indonesia and Chile......oh wait....those were in fact dictatorships....oppressive ones at that. :eek:

I don't want to start a huge debate, but I'm curious?

Why is it wrong to free people from an oppresive regime?

It isn't wrong... it's unequivocally right. People deserve to be free. How can ANYONE question that?

canuck heaven

how many Iraqis voted, again?

the high voter turnout surely is proof of their hate for america. I bet most are at least somewhat appreciative of our good deed.

but as folks like you continue to show, no good deed goes unpunished.

canuck heaven

how many Iraqis voted, again?

the high voter turnout surely is proof of their hate for america. I bet most are at least somewhat appreciative of our good deed.

but as folks like you continue to show, no good deed goes unpunished.
Well Sistani encouraged the Shiites to vote, to enable them to take the country back from the Sunnis. The Sunnis did not want to take part in this "democratic" process and urged their group not to register or vote, which for the most part they didn't. It would be ironic if the Shiites are able to get the Sunnis to play along, in order to request that the US remove her forces from the country.

These people in Iraq and around the world know the primary purpose why the US is in Iraq, and it isn't because of the sand.

One of many reasons why Iraq will not be an American "Democracy" (yes I agree we are a republic) is that the Iraqi law abiding citizenry do not have and are unlikely to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Partisan hack? I think not. Clearly I was addressing the movement of Iraq’s governance (under Saddam) more towards western roots as opposed to the more fundamentalist views of the region. It is that you cannot see the correlation?

How does one force democracy on people who at the core, disagree with your ideals and beliefs? Right now, Iraq is under military law as directed through Bremer’s Orders, which also includes a hi-jacking of the Iraqi economy. How do you expect this new found “democracy” to flourish when outside interests can steal the finances that could be used to pave the way to a more prosperous Iraq? Speaking of “propaganda”….this whole Iraqi exercise has been one of misguided, and misleading “propaganda”.:

How do the Iraqi people disagree with the belife of Democracy at its core ? They belive they should be ruled by a dictator ? I wonder where they got that idea.. maybe the last 20 years of Saddams rule.. Maybe your refering to the religious aspects of the society.. Iraq has traditionally been the most secular of nations, and is expected to remain this way even as some religious influences creep into the governmental structure.

As to the bit about "control over the country".... well.. simply said your wrong.. Iraq is not under military law. Actually Iraq has been under the governance of the Iraqi council since the turn over of power from the American forces. I would like examples of how the Iraqi economy has been hijacked and how we are stealing oil (as you so suggest when you say stealing finances). The largest bit of evidence directly controdicting this idea that we are stealing oil is that we.. ARE PAYING 50 BUCKS A BARRAL when before the war we were paying half that. America experiances none of the so called benifits one would expect when stealing from another country...

So the US provided the “revolution” that they believe that the Iraqi people wanted? The Shiites just love America….yeah okay. :rolleyes: Oh and the Sunnis just love America....of course. :rolleyes: Perhaps you have lost sight of why the US is in Iraq in the first place? :

Weren't the Sunni's the minority section ruling the class ? Shiites infact have a far more agreeable aditude toward the US then they did Saddam.. and the Kurds postion is well known.. very favorable.. Ive just described 80% of the population in Iraq.. Yes.. I imagin the 20% you describe is unpleased with Americans to some degree.. seeing how the government which favored them was over thrown. :eek:

All well and fine, as long as, the Iraqi people want what the US has to offer. IMHO, I do not believe that the people of Iraq are looking for western style democracy at this time. There are just too many fundamental differences between the two cultures. By trying to impose your style of democracy on them through use of force, oppression, and occupation, you open yourself to reprisals and condemnation. I have also seen the results of other countries who have had support of the US administration to help spread democracy, such as Indonesia and Chile......oh wait....those were in fact dictatorships....oppressive ones at that. :eek:

This is of course ludicrise because in every instant in which democracy has entered a country it has always been reguarded as a new and revolutionary advent (with the exception of Britian who had a bloodless revolution). How much experiance or knowledge did France have with democracy before overthrowing its monarchy ? or America for that matter. How can you say it is against their culture when democracy is new to every culture who has been ruled by dictatorial figures in its history.. And you begg my question when stating we are imposing Western Style democracy.. Democracy at its core is Western in nature as it orginated in the West. The difference is IRAQ determines how the government will look, they are doing so right now as they elect religious affliated political members to the legislator which will be drafting their constitution.. not a very western tradition now is it ? The fact of the matter is.. america only INTRODUCED democracy, they are already shaping it to fit their society. The idea that democracy cannot work in the arab culture is perposertous, because you base this idea on the fact that arab history has been led by dictatorship.

Is Chile a brutal dictatorship.. odd becuase the fact that they are a democracy with a constitution whose leaders are elected seems to suggest
otherwise.. Similarly with Indonesia.. oh yes.. yet another republic whose representative are ELECTED... explain to me exactly where the brutal dictatorship part comes in :headbang:

As well using force, oppression, and occupation... at what point is oppression being used on Iraqi people, and the idea of an occupation is obsurd.. seeing how we remain in the country on whims of the current Iraqi government. If they proclaimed tomorrow that the US should leave, the US army would in fact leave.. because full soverginty has been transfered to that government.

Perhaps if you looked through your partisanship and hatrid of the current administration, you would see things far less black and white then you are suggesting..

And we will really see how displeased Iraqi's are with America.. now that they have elected their government.. If the government asks the US to leave now .. then your position will be validated.. that Iraqis truely do hate American forces.. However, I find this very implausible and suspect American forces to be in the country for the next few years at the very least because Iraqis realize the necessity for them (american forces)

Then came the double cross, when the US supplied arms to Iran to help push back Saddam who was on the verge of taking over Iran. If this hadn't happened, perhaps the US could have worked with Saddam in gradually shifting the politics of the region to more of a western style democracy once Iran had fallen..

This shows your complete lack of knowledge of basic history in the region.. You do realize during the Iran Iraq war.. we supported Iraq because the Soviets were supporting Iran.. WE would have loved for nothing more then IRan (fundamentalist state) to fall to Saddam's secular government at the time, and we bankrolled the whole Iraqi army major controbutions from France to make that achievement. At NO POINT did we supply arms to IRan to help push back Saddam.. that was the Soviets who were tryin to exert influence in the region.

What has the US got to show for its' efforts in the region? Two wars, troops installed in Iraq, increased debt, and Iran developing nuclear weapons. However, the US now has the ability to control the most important prizes in all of this.....OIL, and control of the Iraqi economy through Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations)!!.

If you actually read that site you posted, you'll notice no orders past JUNE 2004... Wonder why? because after June 2004 the IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL has been given full power (including control of their economy :eek: ) from the American forces, so that we are no longer occupiers in any legal sense...

It seems your information is either outdated, misleading, or simply false.. what shocker.. and you say its not partisan hack ? you twist history to fit your views..

I am sure that if democracy flourishes in Iraq, that would be a bonus to the US, but certainly was not the prime mandate.

What was the prime mandate.. make america rich off the oil ? Im wondering when that will start.. seing how we have sky rocketing deficits, and are paying 50 dollars a barrel for oil.. twice what we were paying before the war...

How do the Iraqi people disagree with the belife of Democracy at its core ? They belive they should be ruled by a dictator ? I wonder where they got that idea.. maybe the last 20 years of Saddams rule.. Maybe your refering to the religious aspects of the society.. Iraq has traditionally been the most secular of nations, and is expected to remain this way even as some religious influences creep into the governmental structure.
Perhaps you misunderstood the question that I asked, which was:

How does one force democracy on people who at the core, disagree with your ideals and beliefs?


As to the bit about "control over the country".... well.. simply said your wrong.. Iraq is not under military law. Actually Iraq has been under the governance of the Iraqi council since the turn over of power from the American forces. I would like examples of how the Iraqi economy has been hijacked and how we are stealing oil (as you so suggest when you say stealing finances). The largest bit of evidence directly controdicting this idea that we are stealing oil is that we.. ARE PAYING 50 BUCKS A BARRAL when before the war we were paying half that. America experiances none of the so called benifits one would expect when stealing from another country...
Did I say the US is stealing Iraqi oil? Of course not. I said stealing the economy. Once again, I refer you to Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations), which is a 40 year lease on the Iraqi economy. It does not expire with the election of the new Iraqi Government.

Order 100:

The Order seeks to ensure that the Iraqi Interim Government and all subsequent Iraqi governments inherit full responsibility for these laws, regulations, orders, memoranda, instructions and directives so that their implementation after the transfer of full governing authority may reflect the expectations of the Iraqi people, as determined by a fully empowered and sovereign Iraqi Government.

The Orders include among many:

finance, commerce, judicary, arms control, military, penal system, workers rights, etc.

Check out Order 39, and 94. These control foreign investment and banking. Heck read them all. It is such a shocking travesty.

Shiites infact have a far more agreeable aditude toward the US then they did Saddam
I disagree...can you support this case?


Is Chile a brutal dictatorship.. odd becuase the fact that they are a democracy with a constitution whose leaders are elected seems to suggest
otherwise..

Similarly with Indonesia.. oh yes.. yet another republic whose representative are ELECTED... explain to me exactly where the brutal dictatorship part comes in :headbang:

You have obviously missed the point I was raising? Perhaps a little reading reading about Chile (Augusto Pinochet) and Indonesia (General Shuarto) is in order, because you obviously know very little about those brutal dictatorships that were supported by the US.

As well using force, oppression, and occupation... at what point is oppression being used on Iraqi people, and the idea of an occupation is obsurd.. seeing how we remain in the country on whims of the current Iraqi government. If they proclaimed tomorrow that the US should leave, the US army would in fact leave.. because full soverginty has been transfered to that government.
I guess the flattening of Fallujah was not oppression? Iraq is obviously under occupation and the new government is unable to release US troops at this time for obvious reasons.

Perhaps if you looked through your partisanship and hatrid of the current administration, you would see things far less black and white then you are suggesting..
In regards to "partisanship", it is you that is touting the Bush rhetoric and contrary to your belief, I do not hate the current administration. Dislike is better.

And we will really see how displeased Iraqi's are with America.. now that they have elected their government.. If the government asks the US to leave now .. then your position will be validated.. that Iraqis truely do hate American forces.. However, I find this very implausible and suspect American forces to be in the country for the next few years at the very least because Iraqis realize the necessity for them (american forces)
I am realatively certain that if Sistani and the Sunnis have a say in the matter, then the US troops will be leaving sooner than later. Bush would be extremely reluctant to withdraw US troops anytime soon. That is why 14 enduring bases are being built in Iraq. Besides, the US has to protect that oil!!

This shows your complete lack of knowledge of basic history in the region.. You do realize during the Iran Iraq war.. we supported Iraq because the Soviets were supporting Iran.. WE would have loved for nothing more then IRan (fundamentalist state) to fall to Saddam's secular government at the time, and we bankrolled the whole Iraqi army major controbutions from France to make that achievement. At NO POINT did we supply arms to IRan to help push back Saddam.. that was the Soviets who were tryin to exert influence in the region.
It is I that is lacking knowledge? Think what you may. However, the US did NOT want Iran to fall to Iraq. Perhaps a little history reading regarding the Iran/Contra scandal is in order? That is another ball of wax and misguided American foreign policy.
If you actually read that site you posted, you'll notice no orders past JUNE 2004... Wonder why? because after June 2004 the IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL has been given full power (including control of their economy :eek: ) from the American forces, so that we are no longer occupiers in any legal sense...
As in my post above, I ask you to read Bremer's Orders, and then you will notice that they are automatically imposed on future Iraqi governments. Such a travesty.

It seems your information is either outdated, misleading, or simply false.. what shocker.. and you say its not partisan hack ? you twist history to fit your views..
I am twisting history? My information is outdated, misleading or false? Try again and next time, support your argument with fact rather than just your beliefs.

What was the prime mandate.. make america rich off the oil ? Im wondering when that will start.. seing how we have sky rocketing deficits, and are paying 50 dollars a barrel for oil.. twice what we were paying before the war...
I really think you have no concept about the oil situation. It is not the price of the oil....it is the CONTROL of the oil. Oil which drives the US economy.