myata

Well I wouldn't qualify anything that depends on significant foreign power to sustain its life as a democracy. Such a "state" is simply would not be an independent entity, which would fail the first condition of having full control over the country's territory. I'll agree to call them "transitional" states or any other term that you would like. Once foreign power is out, and the state is able to maintain democratic institutions for some time (e.g. one year), it can be qualified on the Dahl's scale. By the way, to that scale I would also add some form of independent and free business environment. Without such, a state with many other democratic attributes would wield too much influence over individuals choices.

I would not call a law that that only allowed those exceptions 'reasonable'. It is disturbing that 45% of people actually voted for the proposition. I wonder what is next for South Dakota: a proposition to prohibit women from working outside the home and wear a burka? Exactly. I'd title the tread "A narrow victory for basic sanity" instead. Regarding the polls, one should be very careful about the question that is being asked. Individual attitude toward abortion is not the same as support for its legal prohibition.

Wrong. They were voted in with 99.9% vote. Keep working on understanding democracy (and when you think you're finally there please share the revelation with GWB). Thanks for admitting the obvious. The rest is ignored as repetitous cyclical statement a la Krusty. "They" started nothing. The US barged in, imposed their own administration, handpicked the government and set people to write the "constitution", then rushed in election in a volatile violent environment where troops were routinely present in the streets and polling stations. The first part is ignored as obvious BS. The second part is ignored as repetitious cyclical statement a la Krusty.

Thanks for the reference, I'll make sure to check. A democracy is a complex mechanism that is wired into the fabric of the society by years and generations of evolution. To think that it can it can be simply put on like a hat is misguided idealism. To force it on real people with arms is a crime of the same kind as imposing a religion or communism.

You got yourself a winning argument, Krusty. Now go fetch Cuban constitution, Soviet constitution, Chinese constituion and whatever else "constitution" and prove once and for all, waving those in your hand, that they are/were all, in fact, top notch (or maybe fledgling, but still) democracies. Bravo.

Legally, really? ( I have commented on the legality of such transactions awhile ago and you might have forgotten to reply).

CBC public forum on Afganistan is 7pm Thursday Nov. 9 at 1495 Heron Rd. There must be a link of the CBC website as well. Also, an interesting report on poppy eradication in Kandahar this morning. According to the report, massive poppy eradication campaign which leaves farmers with no life support and in highly frustrated mood (a question raised if / how it adds fuel to the insurgency), was sponsored by US administration via a private mercenary company as conduit. For some reason, US and UK don't seem to be as intensive on poppy eradication in their own areas of control in Afganistan. One could only wonder, is it an innocent failure of communications between the allies, or could it perhaps, have some intent behind it, e.g. to add fuel to the fledgling "war on terror"?

Oh well, that would be #3. Thanks for the tip!

It was already pointed out that you can't make an argument by copy/pasting second hand thoughts. Even those from high school dictionary. It's not a replacement for logic and original thinking. Just as pathetic as attempts to wear out by endless repeating of the same adage. Please feel free to contribute when you have something new. Adieu for now. BTW, I'm making a change in my posting policy, so this is the last time I'm commenting on posts empty of thoughts or devoid of information or logical argument.

A democracy comprises all of the following (but not limited to): 1. responsible, competent and functional government that extends its authority over all national territories and local territories of competence; 2. free and independent press; 3. representative and just lawmaking system; 4. independent and competent legal system; 5. civil society with free and independent groups and organizations watching and reporting functioning of the government; 6. population that is educated in understanding its rights and freedoms; 7. legitimate system of delegation of authority on all levels of government (such as e.g., free elections); Quite obviously, none of the pseudo-democracies created by outside force possess much (barely any) of the above to qualify. So, yes, Hamas and Hezbollah aren't democratic governments even though they may have been elected in apparently free elections. It's not a matter of nationality but factual situation (I'm not really in the mood to bounce bs around). The chief mistake of the "democracy rules" doctrine is that assumption that there's one superiour system that needs (and sometimes has) to be imposed on others even against their will. We've already been there with religion, we found out hard way that it was wrong and we now allow all religions to co-exist peacefully. Yet, some are making the same exact mistake with the system of governance. The core assumption may be true or wrong, it's up to the time to resolve it one way or the other. But to experiment with in practice, with real people is irresponsible and morally wrong in the same exact way as it was wrong to convert heathens by force (and fire - anyone surprised?) in the earlier ages.

Sigh... Even 99.99% or even 110% of "yes" by population that does not know or understand what democracy is, does not mean very much. See above for more detail. As other posters pointed out, a democracy is lot more than going to the polls every so many years. Then, again (3rd time? I lost count): it's the Bushes & Co, who started the misaventure, for whom the time is ticking. Four years is very generous given the mess they created. Iraqis aren't going anywhere and will have all the time they need to sort out the mess that Bushes, in their enlightened stupidity decided to create for them. And finally about the time, I wouldn't bet on what getting anywhere near normal stable life in Iraq now will take less time than if it was just left alone. If it ever happens in the foreseable future, of course. I.e. if the country won't fall into an all-out civil war, or gets torn apart by ethinic factions. As someone already pointed out, Saddam isn't immortal, and civil progress in the countries which liberated themselves can be amazingly fast - take most of Eastern Europe as example.

You mean, brain transplant (i.e, total and complete "reengineering" of entire country)? Sounds even less likely than option #1 (i.e., stay forever and hope for a miracle). BTW, I heard it on CBC this morning that there will be a public discussion of Afgan mission, in Ottawa this week. If I got it right (it was playing background), it's this Thursday, 7pm somewhere near Heron Rd. I'll try to find a link or if someone else sees it please post here in this thread.

Thats right. A quagmire. Permanent life support to the government that can't govern outside of Kabul or withdraw and watch the country fall back to Taleban. Any better options?

Discussion on establishment of democracy is now going in two threads (this and 1441), so I'll continue with the latter.

One thing people who try to (or believe in) achieving democracy via forced elections do not seem to understand (or pretend not to) is the relation between the democracy and the power. In the western societies, democracy has become the only channel of delegation of power via long evolutionary process. Because of that, we sometimes tend to view the two as synonimous (however I expect that high level politicians with their learned advisors would know the difference). Other societies developed their own ways of channeling and delegating authority. When a new method, like "free elections" is artificially imposed, the society will, more likely than not, adapt, i.e. accept the extenal democratic form, while behind the curtain continue to follow established ways of governing. In this way, democracy simply becomes a facade for the traditional system. In a worse example, a minority of people may come to believe that the new system did take hold. The problem is, such pseudo-democracy does not have the generally accepted authority and only exists due to continuing infusion of power from outside. If and when the external support is withdrawn, the feeble "democracy" will collapse and traditional power system would reestablish itself. This is not to say that imposition of democracy is absolutely impossible. Just that it requires truly extraordinary conditions which would totally eliminate both previous power system, and its acceptance by the population. It probably happened once or twice in history (e.g. Japan after WWII), but it would be incredibly irresponsible to promote it as a regular strategy. A better, but longer path is to work by example hoping that with time people would understand the advantages of democracy and choose it to represent their authority of their own will.

I'm not familiar with the theory - is there a good reference? Breeding democracy with bombs is no more feasible that a total brain transplant.

Propping a government that barely has any authority outside the capital may not be a solution no matter how much we wanted it. I'm no expert on Afganistan and its complex tribal system but my general take from the recent history is that foreign interference only strengthens most radical factions. Yes there's little point in talking to Taliban because our reference systems are absolutely different, on the other hand I'm not sure staying there would lead to a permanent solution. We'll have to pull out one day, and look what happened when Soviets did.

Well, I guess they're withing their right, they don't have the "freedom of jesture" enshrined in the Constitution yet, at least, as far as I know.

Do you really not understand the difference between private purchise of land and its nationality, or deliberately trying to confuse by constantly pulling in the Jewish card? When anyone buys land that is a part of an Arab state it still remains a part of that state. Israeli troops have nothing to do there and Israeli politicians can't claim it as the "facts on the ground". This position is very funny and is not very credible to the people from outside the conflict like myself. One one hand, you want to use selected pre-1948 facts to justify Israeli presence on the lands which were allocated to arabs as part of separation. With the other hand though you want to ignore the fact that Jewish population was in significant minority in the territories not long before it. You can have one of the two but not both: either revisit the entire history, and situation pre-1948, which would, among others, raise questions about legitimacy of creation of Israel; or accept 1948 as the starting point in all discussions. You seem to want to have it both ways: Isreal in current borders plus whatever pre-1948 justifications you can find for grabbing extra land. To me, that does not appear as just or credible or reasonable position in this conflict.

What do you mean by legally ... not recognised...? Legally in which legal system? International law does not allow settlement of occupied land. It that's the land of the Arab state, they're within their right, as much as we may not like it. And Israel has no jurisfiction over these lands. So, however settlers have gotten there, it's 1) illegail; 2) interferes with the ongoing conflict; and 3) makes them accomplices in their states policies with all the consequences.

OK, illegally expropriated and settled for generations if that's OK with you? Not really the same as your regular patch of soil north of Toronto? Like those Palestinians, settlers willingly decided be be a tool for their government's actions in this conflict and I just don't see the difference between the two. Not that I sympathise or condone either act.

One example is not plural for ... , you know it. Most of West bank settlements (all?) are built on illegally expropriated land. And then, what's the meaning of "buy"? If the land is illegally occupied, international law does not allow "buying" and settling it, so it's really all bs.

Your attemps to bring up this card over and again are really pathetic. At issue is not the ethnicity of certain individuals but the fact that they decided, of their own will, to live on the territory forcefully appropriated from other people and which is an arena of a military conflict. Therefore they fit any reasonable definition of a human shield. The same would apply to any country or ethnical group that would promote this policy.

Or, to bend it a bit further, carry a gun on the land ... you just grabbed from its owners. Right? BTW you call it twist, I'd just say, apply same standard. I guess it's a matter of terminology.

This one time, I agree.