NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple 'nuff poll, eh?

Think deep down how you feel about the situation. Do you really want the US to succeed or do you really want the US to fail? Vote then post a note with your justification of why you voted/feel that way.

What, precisely, are the conditions for success or failure?

Success would be nice.
If only there was more than a scant possibility it could happen.

Poll failure. Why would anyone want us to fail? I'm certain we will, but why would anyone wish us to?

What, precisely, are the conditions for success or failure?

this looks like the best source for that definition;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

Poll failure. Why would anyone want us to fail? I'm certain we will, but why would anyone wish us to?

You're kidding - right?

I don't think that failure is totally certain, assuming you are reffering to the aims of the US gov today rather then what they aimed to do when they invaded Iraq.

Poll failure. Why would anyone want us to fail? I'm certain we will, but why would anyone wish us to?

If the United States ultimately and unquestionably fails in Iraq it is a catastrophic blow to the Republican party, and, via the two party system, a giant leap forward for the Democratic party.

If the United States ultimately and unquestionably fails in Iraq it is a catastrophic blow to the Republican party, and, via the two party system, a giant leap forward for the Democratic party.

Or for the fact that if the US fails in Iraq, it is less likely to go sticking its dick in places it doesn't need to be. I think that is a better reason.

If the United States ultimately and unquestionably fails in Iraq it is a catastrophic blow to the Republican party, and, via the two party system, a giant leap forward for the Democratic party.

It's not like the Democratic party are thaaaat much better, but they are better. But I think that state of Iraq is far more important then getting votes.

Poll failure. Why would anyone want us to fail? I'm certain we will, but why would anyone wish us to?Because the definition of success you're working under, is an oxymoron that no amount of murder will ever bring about.

If your country wasn't wholly self-serving with wholly negative consequences for the entire region, I might not want you to fail. As things are though, I'd be a monster not to.

Yankees Raus!

Or for the fact that if the US fails in Iraq, it is less likely to go sticking its dick in places it doesn't need to be. I think that is a better reason.

Nonsense, look at Vietnam. And it's not even a good reason even if it did mean that.

You're kidding - right?

No, I'm really not. Unless you think American failure will bring anything less than total anarchy to the region, which would leave me wondering if you were serious.

No, I'm really not. Unless you think American failure will bring anything less than total anarchy to the region, which would leave me wondering if you were serious.

Or a state ruled by a very unwanted administration.

I want Iraq to be stable, peaceful and free, which option is that?

Success

I want Iraq to be stable, peaceful and free, which option is that?

Or a state ruled by a very unwanted administration.

That would scarcely be unusual on the world stage, nor in the long history of imperialism.

I want Iraq to be stable, peaceful and free, which option is that?The 'Fail' one. The US definition of success is a puppet state to enforce its ME strategies... You know.. Sort of exactly like Iraq until Saddam fell out of favour.

The 'Fail' one. The US definition of success is a puppet state to enforce its ME strategies... You know.. Sort of exactly like Iraq until Saddam fell out of favour.

Even if that is true, which it isn't, that is still hugely better then what will happen if you fail.

That would scarcely be unusual on the world stage, nor in the long history of imperialism.

Unusual maybe not, but if the Taliban or AQ were to gain authority over this state, even if indirect (which would be very possible if we failed) it would be a whole lot of trouble.

Who doesn't want the US to suceed.The mission is:stop terrorism,bring democracy. Thats what it is.Whether the SU is carrying out there mission or suceeding.Thats the question.Everyone wants democracy and to stop terrorism.

Even if that is true, which it isn't,Well.. The US administration thinks differently, and sadly their opinion of their goals carrry a wee bit more weight than yours.that is still hugely better then what will happen if you fail.I don't see anything to support that assertion, hence my opinion.

Simple 'nuff poll, eh?

Think deep down how you feel about the situation. Do you really want the US to succeed or do you really want the US to fail? Vote then post a note with your justification of why you voted/feel that way.

My thoughts are this are simple. The U.S. made a major mistake by attacking Iraq in the first place, but what is done is done, and we cannot change that now. So now we have to correct our mistake. That mistake has many terrible and unfortunate consequenses, but since is it is our mistake we must learn to live with them.

To me, success means helping reinstating a government that is capable of controlling the country. After all, we are responsible, along with the allies that helped us in the initial invasion, for destroying the soveriegn government of Iraq. Therefore it is our responsiblity to replace that government with a government that is capable of maintaining control of the country.

That said, I do not agree with the way we are going about achieving success. I think it is long overdue for Bush to concede that we need all of Iraq's neighbors to help and begin negotiating with Iran and Syria, and the rest of Iraq's neighbors until we can develop a plan where they provide us and the Iraqi government with assistance to stablize the country.

Then we can begin a gradual redeployment of our troops and over the course of the next 18 to 24 months start bring people home.

Well.. The US administration thinks differently, and sadly their opinion of their goals carrry a wee bit more weight than yours.


What you say is not based on fact but your speculation. They want a stable democratic state which the US will oversee for a while, just because they made a mistake with choosing Saddam last time doesn't mean they will make the same mistake again. I would still choose Saddam over failure anyway.


I don't see anything to support that assertion, hence my opinion.

Iraqi forces will be too overstretched and won't be able to deal with the militants, the militants despise them as well since they are just a puppet for the US.

this is one of the things that pisses me off about the administration.

it insists on focusing on failure.

failure failure failure

WE HAVE ALREADY WON IN IRAQ.

there is no possibility of failure. we met our goals long ago.

there are no WMD; saddam hussein no longer runs iraq; iraq is not a threat to us, our friends or its neighbors.

all that remains is to get the hell out in a way that gives the iraqi people the best chance for peace.

we cant GIVE them democracy. we cant GIVE them a stable government. we cant force them to get along.

we have done our best to set up the possibility for peace inside iraq. yes our best sucks but its all we CAN do.

success or failure is up to iraq now.

Who doesn't want the US to suceed.The mission is:stop terrorism,bring democracy. Thats what it is.Whether the SU is carrying out there mission or suceeding.Thats the question.Everyone wants democracy and to stop terrorism.

That is not the mission. The mission is what Similization said, its to bring a puppet power to the region to help get what it wants.

If we were in favour of democracy, we would be out of there by now, because of the fact that a majority of Iraqis want us gone, and a majority of Americans want their troops home. If our gov't won't listen to the people, then how are we to say we are for spreading democracy? Hypocrisy.

this is one of the things that pisses me off about the administration.

it insists on focusing on failure.

failure failure failure

WE HAVE ALREADY WON IN IRAQ.

there is no possibility of failure. we met our goals long ago.

there are no WMD; saddam hussein no longer runs iraq; iraq is not a threat to us, our friends or its neighbors.

all that remains is to get the hell out in a way that gives the iraqi people the best chance for peace.

we cant GIVE them democracy. we cant GIVE them a stable government. we cant force them to get along.

we have done our best to set up the possibility for peace inside iraq. yes our best sucks but its all we CAN do.

success or failure is up to iraq now.

:fluffle: Quoted for truth!

What you say is not based on fact but your speculation.No. Read the link posted on p.1 of this thread.They want a stable democratic state which the US will oversee for a while, just because they made a mistake with choosing Saddam last time doesn't mean they will make the same mistake again. I would still choose Saddam over failure anyway.This, on the other hand, is speculation. Baseless speculation at that. Iraqi forces will be too overstretched and won't be able to deal with the militants, the militants despise them as well since they are just a puppet for the US.Wouldn't that be the opposite of support for your earlier assertion?

If the United States ultimately and unquestionably fails in Iraq it is a catastrophic blow to the Republican party, and, via the two party system, a giant leap forward for the Democratic party.

If we actually fail in Iraq, and are forced to pull out, either by political pullout, or by overwhelming insurgent response, similar to that of Vietnam, it will be a major blow, not just to the Republican party, but also to our economy, because in all likelihood, such an event would spark a civil war in Iraq, and every one of its neighbors will join in to protect their interests in Iraq.

What make me say this you ask? Well, we all know that Iran is already involved in Iraq in some way. Their influence has been seen by many nations, including US intelligence, and how could they not, with what is happening now, Iran's influence in the region is greatly increased. considering that Iran and Syria and closely allied at this time one can assume that Syria will through in its support.

Saudi Arabia has already said that if civil war broken out in Iraq, they would support the Sunnis, and yes that was retracted, but only from pressure by the US. Besides do you really think that they won't take some action to hinder Iran's increasing influence? If Saudi Arabia attempts to intervene, or provide aid to the Sunnis it is only a matter of time before other Arab nations get involved.

And lets not forget the Kurds in the north, while they may try to stay out of the combat, one cannot ignore the that they might try to establish a "nation" of their own. Such an action would not be permitted by Turkey and would only spark a worse situation.

So at this point we have Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries. Basically the entire Middle East goes to war on one side or the other in Iraq.

Since a large part of the world's oil comes from that area the entire world's oil supply would be affecting and the global economy would suffer greatly. Not exactly something I want to see happen.

Therefore, success through negotiation is the only option we have.

Simple 'nuff poll, eh?

Think deep down how you feel about the situation. Do you really want the US to succeed or do you really want the US to fail? Vote then post a note with your justification of why you voted/feel that way.

I would LIKE the US to succeed. but whether it can is a different question.

Simple 'nuff poll, eh?

Think deep down how you feel about the situation. Do you really want the US to succeed or do you really want the US to fail? Vote then post a note with your justification of why you voted/feel that way.

I would LIKE the US to succeed. but whether it can is a different question.

No. Read the link posted on p.1 of this thread.This, on the other hand, is speculation. Baseless speculation at that.


From the link

"Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism. "

How the fuck does this translate to an evil puppet state in any way other then speculation? I'm guessing it's the "full partner in the global war on terrorism" that threw you. So the fuck what? You can be allies without having one nation being a puppet. The US called it "partners", if it ended up being a puppet then it wouldn't really be partners as they wouldn't be equal. Thus you have defined failure not success, as that is against the US's current definition of success (whether or not the US actually want to live up to the real definition of "partners"). But even if it did turn out that Iraq was a puppet whilst being peaceful and stable, that isn't really so bad and is still way better then the alternative.


Wouldn't that be the opposite of support for your earlier assertion?

Not at all, if the Iraqi forces cannot defeat the militants, the militants will be able to overthrow the government, creating either an anarchy or some sort of dangerous Islamic regime likely linked to terrorists in some way.

It doesn't matter what one wants. They've already failed. The question is moot.

Why would anyone want us to fail?

It's simple - you are the bad guys in this. Your failure is thus desirable.

It's simple - you are the bad guys in this. Your failure is thus desirable.

Well I don't buy into the immature notion of teh goodies v teh baddies.

Simple 'nuff poll, eh?

Think deep down how you feel about the situation. Do you really want the US to succeed or do you really want the US to fail? Vote then post a note with your justification of why you voted/feel that way.

This poll is made of fail. You are asking me if I want the US to fail or succeed at illegally invading a country, transforming it into a banana republic and imposing its will up on it. That's like asking if you want someone to to succeed or fail at hushing up someone they've just raped.

Well I don't buy into the immature notion of teh goodies v teh baddies.

All baddies would like to think they're goodies. You're an excellent example thereto.

All baddies would like to think they're goodies. You're an excellent example thereto.

Even though I deny that there is such thing as a force for good and a force for evil, I still like to think that we're a force for good? :confused:

Or a state ruled by a very unwanted administration.

I thought they were elected?

Blame and run is all what I see from the Iraq war. I guess America has to face the Frankenstein (s) they created in Iraq.

In any case, I don't give a shit whether the U.S. fails or succeeds. Whatever is best for the Iraqi people is what needs to happen, and that's where the debate really needs to be.

I hope the US pure and utterly fails...actually it already has.

I want Iraq to be stable, peaceful and free..seconded.

I want Iraq to be stable, peaceful and free, which option is that?The 'Fail' one. The US definition of success is a puppet state to enforce its ME strategies... You know.. Sort of exactly like Iraq until Saddam fell out of favour.or like the most other ME dictatorships.

I want Iraq to be a prosperous sovereign democratic place.

we have done our best to set up the possibility for peace inside iraq.our best would have been to allow Blix to finish his damn Job.. Bombing Iraq is NOT the best for Iraqis.

At this point I could care less. Isn't sucess at this point still a massive failure anyway? The only thing I care about is if Kate Hudson hadn't broken up with Owen Wilson, would he have tried to kill himself? I think not. They were a cute couple.

Poll failure. Why would anyone want us to fail? I'm certain we will, but why would anyone wish us to?

I think that the US already failed to achieve their goal, let us not forget that this is not a "war", but a democratic process, it failed because now there is a civil war, of course the Americans know a lot about that ...... it's not the only way to democracy .....

Or for the fact that if the US fails in Iraq, it is less likely to go sticking its dick in places it doesn't need to be. I think that is a better reason.

The outcome of Iraq is irrelevant with respect to future US foreign policy.

I think that the US already failed to achieve their goal, let us not forget that this is not a "war", but a democratic process, it failed because now there is a civil war, of course the Americans know a lot about that ...... it's not the only way to democracy .....

Iraq is a war. It is not a declared war, but it is no less a war than Vietnam or Korea.

And out of curiosity, I wonder (in all seriousness) if there is a country who has achieved democratic government without armed conflict?

If the United States ultimately and unquestionably fails in Iraq it is a catastrophic blow to the Republican party, and, via the two party system, a giant leap forward for the Democratic party.

Spin---Spin---Spin

All the Republicans have to do is hold out until Jan 20, 09. Then any loss they will blame on the Democrats. "We would have won if Republicans would have been elected. Those Democrats wanted us to lose from the beginning!"

Don't you think I could be a script writer for Sean or Rush?

We have passed the point where the US could succeed.

That depends entirely on what the US considers "success."

I would like to see Iraq with a secular, pluralist liberal democracy genuinely independent of the US, other regional powers, and multinational corporations.

I recognize that the chances of this are extremely low.

I want Iraq to succeed.

And I want tacos. :)

Of course I want them to succeed. There's no good that comes of failure whatsoever; a defeat is a defeat, and all it does is hurt everyone involved and benefit those most likely to worsen the already tenuous situation. Losing in Vietnam didn't end US intervention around the globe, and loss in Iraq wouldn't end it either, so that possibility is out.

All a loss would do is weaken us militarily, destabilize the Middle East, and lead to yet another repressive and murderous regime in Iraq.

our best would have been to allow Blix to finish his damn Job.. Bombing Iraq is NOT the best for Iraqis.

i agree.

but that horse is well out of the barn. we cant undo the invasion.

we are trying to set up a peaceful iraqi government. we suck at it but i dont see a chance that the bush administration could do a better job at it.

I don't think 'western' democracy can work there, at least not if force fed.

Therefore I hope the US will fail and peace will follow.

As a person of the United States who has studied for a short time on foreign affairs. I beleive that the US should win. I also beleive that if the United States wanted to take over Iraq just for reasons like oil or territory we deffinetly could have. So there has to be another reason. I dont beleive its to use Iraq as a "Puppet" nation. I personally think that we democracy wil be brought to the middle east just like it was brought to European nations after World War II. The middle-east is known to be 50 to 30 years behind western countrys, there is no doubt about that. So some things have been checked off the list: No WMDS (ok good), No more Saddam as dictator (ok cool), Wide spread democracy in Iraq (not so much) and No more terrorism(almost there), no more domestic violence in Iraq (No Way), safety for Iraq and neighboring countrys (NO). All these things could of course be annalyzed and probably have a flaw in them. I dont think that democracy in Iraq is as easy as democracy in a stable enviroment like Europe or America due to its to spread out even though its a reletavely small nation it has few major cities and not enough organized rules in smaller areas. So maybe if Iraq was to be connected some way through a good system of physical and civil communication like Europe and America is, Than its very possible for them to have a democracy. Terrorism will always be a problem in Iraq and the middle east. Even though the US and Allies are policing the area theres just to many places to hide for the terrorists. Domestic violence in Iraq is just part of there culture and thats not being racist its true. Islam is a relegion of war like it or not, having two different types of a war driven people in the same country is just not good, than there will always be a problem with kurds and other smaller ethnical groups. Iraq will hopefully solve its problems with its neighbors someday either it be through force or diplomatic communication it will most likely be resolved. all in all The United States is expected to be blamed for all this. But there was always conflicts and problems way before the United States even touched middle-eastern soil, the only reason why you can blame america without any problem is because theres no doubt that The United States is The International Super Power. Success or failure in about 50 years if Iraq is still there they will be a stable democracy,republic or constitutional government.

As a person of the United States who has studied for a short time on foreign affairs. I beleive that the US should win. I also beleive that if the United States wanted to take over Iraq just for reasons like oil or territory we deffinetly could have. So there has to be another reason. I dont beleive its to use Iraq as a "Puppet" nation. I personally think that we democracy wil be brought to the middle east just like it was brought to European nations after World War II. The middle-east is known to be 50 to 30 years behind western countrys, there is no doubt about that. So some things have been checked off the list: No WMDS (ok good), No more Saddam as dictator (ok cool), Wide spread democracy in Iraq (not so much) and No more terrorism(almost there), no more domestic violence in Iraq (No Way), safety for Iraq and neighboring countrys (NO). All these things could of course be annalyzed and probably have a flaw in them. I dont think that democracy in Iraq is as easy as democracy in a stable enviroment like Europe or America due to its to spread out even though its a reletavely small nation it has few major cities and not enough organized rules in smaller areas. So maybe if Iraq was to be connected some way through a good system of physical and civil communication like Europe and America is, Than its very possible for them to have a democracy. Terrorism will always be a problem in Iraq and the middle east. Even though the US and Allies are policing the area theres just to many places to hide for the terrorists. Domestic violence in Iraq is just part of there culture and thats not being racist its true. Islam is a relegion of war like it or not, having two different types of a war driven people in the same country is just not good, than there will always be a problem with kurds and other smaller ethnical groups. Iraq will hopefully solve its problems with its neighbors someday either it be through force or diplomatic communication it will most likely be resolved. all in all The United States is expected to be blamed for all this. But there was always conflicts and problems way before the United States even touched middle-eastern soil, the only reason why you can blame america without any problem is because theres no doubt that The United States is The International Super Power. Success or failure in about 50 years if Iraq is still there they will be a stable democracy,republic or constitutional government.

How do you know that we didn't go into Iraq for money? You say we could have, I say we did. And why do you think our country would want to set up a democracy in Iraq anyway? There's plenty of other countries with dictators and we don't touch them? You really think we went in for democracy? As for WMDs, you do realize there never were any right? So I don't see the point of checking it off of your list, WMD's were the supposed reason for us going in, but it turns out it was something else. And Saddam, do you really think that's why we went in? Why didn't we get rid of him earlier, like the first time we went in? And just like you've said, there is no stability there, but do you want to know why? It wasn't like that before, it's like that because we got rid of the government, and we aren't providing stability. In fact, for all we know the military could be doing this on purpose. If the sunnis and shias are fighting each other, then they won't be fighting the U.S. military as much, so this could all have been incited by the U.S. government, which you seem to admire so much. Also, tell me why the lack of numerous large cities and communication (how do you define communication anyway?) would be such a hindrance to democracy? Population and having large cities isn't really relevant to having a democracy. As for terrorism, you do realize there weren't any so-called "terrorists" there before we came, none of the suicide bombing type at least. In fact, because we've destabilized the region, and we've caused deaths and destruction, that's why there are "terrorists". You can't expect to invade someone's country and be greeted as heroes, you're going to be greeted as invaders. And every bomb that was dropped, all the building that were destroyed, all the lives that were lost, they are going to be blamed on us, and many people aren't going to like us for it. Now, on Arabs and Islam, how can you say domestic violence is part of someone's culture? And you said you weren't rascist? That's like saying "no offense", you're just telling the other person you're about to be offensive. And Islam is a religion of war? Way to blaim the new scapegoat! And yeah, there have been conflicts in the Middle East even before America got there, but that doesn't somehow justify the U.S. invading and destabilizing the region even more.

I'm not completely sure what the American government is trying to do in Iraq. So succeeding or failing is arbitrary.

on another note, anybody ever read Machiavelli?

Iraq is a war. It is not a declared war, but it is no less a war than Vietnam or Korea.

If a war is not declared it is not a war, it was an invasion in Iraq for the search after WMD. that never were found, but while we are here let's do democracy 101

[QUOTE=And out of curiosity, I wonder (in all seriousness) if there is a country who has achieved democratic government without armed conflict?[/QUOTE]

YES !!!!!! search for yourself, they do exist, I live in one of them.

We did succeed in Iraq: Saddam is gone. We have failed in Iraq: we are still there. Mostly I just want us out of there already.

I want the US to fail.

And out of curiosity, I wonder (in all seriousness) if there is a country who has achieved democratic government without armed conflict?

India. Singapore. Amongst a few others.

How the fuck does this translate to an evil puppet state in any way other then speculation?Simple enough, you just have to actually read it. The US considers Iraq a vital part for their ME policy. The US wants Iraq stable. These two things can't happen without a US puppet regime, as the US has repeatedly proven throughout the Middle East and South America. That there's some feel-good lie thrown in about democracy is just bullshit. It is repeatedly emphasised in the policy document you quoted that the primary concern is furthering the US Middle East policy. That goal is not compatible with a free, democratic Iraq. I'm guessing it's the "full partner in the global war on terrorism" that threw you.Nope. It was all the shit that came after, insane gibberish like 'terrorists taking the battle to US soil' and whatnot. I'd be laughing if those outrageous lies weren't killing hundreds of thousands of people.Not at all, if the Iraqi forces cannot defeat the militants, the militants will be able to overthrow the government, creating either an anarchy or some sort of dangerous Islamic regime likely linked to terrorists in some way.First of all, an anarchy is not a bunch of factions warring for the monopoly on force. It's the opposite. You're talking about chaos or civil war.

Secondly, it's not in anyone's interest to let Iraq fall into the hands of a US puppet regime that can't or won't compromise with all the involved parties, so unless that changes - and that's not part of the Iraq policy, as you've already read - no amount of killing will bring stability. It'll just become a war of attrition, and the US can't win such a thing. Not against largely civilian opposition.

Thirdly, you've still not explained why it's more desirable to have a bunch of armed US-backed thugs running things, than another band of armed thugs. Unless of course you feel US ME policy goals are more important than the concerns of the Iraqi population.

Iraq is a war. It is not a declared war, but it is no less a war than Vietnam or Korea.

And out of curiosity, I wonder (in all seriousness) if there is a country who has achieved democratic government without armed conflict?

Britain, Netherlands, Denmark to name three.

India. Singapore. Amongst a few others.

Singapore I'm afraid I can't speak on, so perhaps there is one.

India, on the other hand, is firmly rooted in bloodshed--democracy was not achieved until the end of British rule. Before that, they were most certainly not.

If a war is not declared it is not a war, it was an invasion in Iraq for the search after WMD. that never were found, but while we are here let's do democracy 101



YES !!!!!! search for yourself, they do exist, I live in one of them.

SO Vietnam was not a war? Korea was not a war? The Gulf War was not a war? Iraq is not a war?

While we're on topic, a little Political Science 101:

From dictionary.com:

war

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8. Cards.
a. a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
b. an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
9. Archaic. a battle.
–verb (used without object)
10. to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11. to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
12. to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
–adjective
13. of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.

None of which require a formal declaration.

From Clausewitz, On War:

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

I'm curious, how much do you actually understand regarding the nature of Iraq?

Iraq is a war. It is not a declared war, but it is no less a war than Vietnam or Korea.

And out of curiosity, I wonder (in all seriousness) if there is a country who has achieved democratic government without armed conflict?

Better question: Is there a "democratic" government that didn't come about through the people vs. being imposed by an outside force? I know there are some former British colonies that chose self rule after hundreds of years of British military education. But has there been a country invaded for the purpose of setting up self rule that succeeded?

And has anyone done any analysis of British success in self rule for former colonies. Of course there were successes such as Australia, India, and Canada, but are these the exceptions or the rule?