Democracy will never work in Iraq, Don't these

[KrustyKidd]

Control of thirteen separate government ministries has been transferred to Iraqis

The Baghdad City Council, largely a mix of previously apolitical technocrats, ranging from sheiks to secularists and from lawyers to engineers, has become a power in its own right. Council members were selected by their neighbors almost a year ago, and after first focusing on their neighborhoods, have since started to speak out on national issues. A February Washington Post profile of the group said, "They are the closest thing Iraq has to a democratically elected representative body with real clout." For instance, council member Ali Hadary pushed hard for the reassembly of classrooms, and received almost $500,000 to repair 20 schools in his area.

It's complete bedlam in Iraq

Iraq's media commission and the U.S.-led administration in Iraq want to set up Web addresses using the domain code ".IQ" as the final tag. That would mean addresses for Web pages would be distinctively identified on the Internet with Iraq's own country code.

Email from Dave - Jun 2, 04

As far as Falluja goes, we have not been allowed to get back in there with any real numbers yet.  Initially, it was confounding.  However, a very interesting dynamic has developed.  Since we have stayed out of Falluja and focused elsewhere, the mujahadeen have had their run of the town.  As they have had no one to fight, they have turned their criminal instincts on the citizens.  The clerics who once were whipping these idiots into a suicidal frenzy are now having to issue Fatwas (holy decrees) admonishing the muj for extortion, rape, murder and kidnapping.  It is unfortunate for the "innocent people" of Falluja but the mujahadeen have betrayed themselves as the thugs that they are by brutalizing the civilians.  There are, in fact, reports of rape, etc from inside the town.

While the muj are thugging away inside the town, we are about 1/2 mile away paying claims, entering into dialogue and contracting jobs.  The citizens come outside the city for work and money and are treated like human beings.  They go back inside and enter a lawless hell.  In short, the muj have done more to show the people what hypocrites they are in a few short weeks than we could have hoped for in a year.  The result is more and more targetable intelligence.  If we are given the green light, we can really go to town on these guys (no pun intended).  However, as much as we would like to do just that, the optimal solution is to empower the Iraqis to take care of it themselves.  That is precisely what we are doing.

Equally astounding is evidence that these "holy warriors" are taking drugs to get high before attacks.  It true, as we pushed into the town in April many Marines came across drug paraphernalia (mostly heroin).  Recently, we have gotten evidence of them using another drug BZ that makes them high and very aggressive.  Cowards and hypocrites.  They don't have the nerve to fight without calming their fear with drugs.  Between highs, they are robbing people and raping young girls.  Some jihad.

Yes sir, a real popular uprising. Maybe, just maybe, it is like normal people have been saying. That normal Iraqis want freedom and it is the radical nutbars and power hungry that don't.

A feud between radical cleric Moqtada Sadr and Iraq's Shiite religious and political establishment shot to the fore Saturday, threatening to spark fighting among the country's majority population.

A spokesman for one of Iraq's main Shiite parties castigated Sadr's Mehdi Army militia for being led by former loyalists of ousted president Saddam Hussein and "terrorists."

He also accused Sadr of plunging Iraq's Shiite population into a "futile war" with the US-led coalition, when anti-occupation resistance could be accomplished by "peaceful means".

"The leadership of the Mehdi Army has been infiltrated by Baathists and terrorists and we have a list of their names," Sheikh Qassem al-Hashimi, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), told reporters.

"This group planned the assassination attempt against Sayed (honorific) Saddredin al-Kubbanji yesterday and it is the same group that killed Sayed Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim and Sayed Abdul Majid al-Khoei."

Anybody that says these guys are freedom fighters need their heads read

In many cases, abductors have ordered the physicians to leave Iraq, sometimes setting a deadline. Iraqi officials fear that the abductions and threats are an organized attempt to cripple the country's healthcare network, likening the tactics to terrorist attacks on the country's oil pipelines or electricity plants.

Whatever, I have tons more to refute simply bad, pain in the ass continual rainy news that so many use to say Iraq is a lost cause and the insurgents are some sort of hope and are right. Go to Google, use the key words Iraq-Good-News. It even gives you details on how much Iraq gets to put away for it's oil sales - pretty much everything. It will also tell you how Australia and Japan will write off Iraqi debts but France won't.

[Big Blue Machine]

Iraq needed a strong dicatator like Hussein, to stop the different regilion peoples from blowing each other up.

[idealisttotheend]

BBM makes a good point that the different ethnic groups could easily fall apart and the territorial integrity of Iraq would be in doubt. Much like Tito's Yugoslavia. I don't think a strong dictator is necessary but strength is necessary especially as the Americans don't seem to be willing to allow the majority to set up the religious state that would probably naturally ensue in Iraq.

I wonder, know that I think about it, what this says about America (that they oppose religious states). After all, isn't a Christian state closer to an Islamic State then a Secular State.

[Big Blue Machine]

Sometimes, democrary doesn't work, they need dicatators. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as he isn't crazy.

[Hugo]

You two are ridiculous. You're saying people occasionally need a good massacring so they calm down? What next, rape victims are asking for it? This is a really stupid and immoral argument.

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as he isn't crazy.

Then I'm sure you won't mind naming a few dictators who weren't "crazy."

[Guest eureka]

I do not think that we will ever see an American style "democracy" in Iraq - thank goodness. Iraq may, however, find its own way to some form of democracy when the US understands that different peoples have different needs and wants. and stops trying to impose its own strange ideas of freedom and democracy.

Then, it would be necessary to define democracy to discuss it. There are several different types. It could be argued that Iraq was a democracy before the invasion based on the numbers who participated in the Baath party. I would not say so, but it is arguable.

There is "one -party" democracy and there is "vanguard" democracy (the type that formed the USSR: yes, it was a democracy according to definition.

What can Iraq expect? I doubt that it would be "Liberal Democracy" as we define our Western style. That requires a secular state or at least one where religious observance is anly form and not substance.

Freedoms will come to Iraq as quickly as they come to America, in my view. Freedom in America is a chimera as it os in all countries where the balance between capitalism and democracy is weighted to one side or the other. In the bias towards capital, America does not have the personal freedoms it trumpets and that people think they have. Freedon exists nowhere where the population is subservient to wealth or power or to an economic machine.

We can hope Iraq does not make the same mistake and finds a better balance.

[Hugo]

stops trying to impose its own strange ideas of freedom and democracy.

Yeah, who needs a society based on individual rights.

It could be argued that Iraq was a democracy before the invasion based on the numbers who participated in the Baath party. I would not say so, but it is arguable.

Only by fools. A vote or party membership obtained under severe duress counts for nothing.

There is "one -party" democracy

No, there isn't. Democracy means the people get to choose the government. With one party, there's no choice, so there's no democracy.

I doubt that it would be "Liberal Democracy" as we define our Western style. That requires a secular state

Like Turkey?

Freedom in America is a chimera as it os in all countries where the balance between capitalism and democracy is weighted to one side or the other.

Capitalism and democracy go together. They are just terms for "economic freedom" and "political freedom" respectively.

In the bias towards capital, America does not have the personal freedoms it trumpets and that people think they have.

What freedoms are they lacking?

[Guest eureka]

I can see that you have not made a study of politics before you post your expert opinions.

There is indeed, one-party democracy and the USSR was an example of that. There is also "Vanguard" democracy of which the USSE was the earliest example.

Democracy needs nothing more than a substantial participation of the populace in the system or party. You should read Professor's series of Massy lectures given some forty years ago for explanations and identification of six types of democracy.

You see, it is only foo;s who will not make the arguments. How do you know if you come to the table with only your own fixed ideas in your head.

Democracy is not necessarily about the choice between alternatives. It is about the agreement of the bulk of the people and that may be on only one.

Capitalism and Democracy do not necessarily go together at all. Your ideas of synonomous terms are simplistic in the extreme. Capitalism and Liberalism together make liberal democracy - one form of democracy - if they are in a proper balance where the Freedoms of Democracy are not checked by over-bearing Capitalism.

What freedoms does the US lack? Many! It does not have Freeedom of the Press where all the major elements of the Media is controlled by six corporations. That was never so apparent as during the Iraq imbroglio.

Without Freedom of the Press there is no democracy since democracy is dependent on an informed public opinion.

Where Capitalism is too strong, there is no complete personal freedom, no matter what the laws tell you. Are you free to tell your boss where to go. Certainly you are if you like the idea of starving.

I could extend this to book length but that should suffice to show that there is a lot more to this than the superficial shouts of the "patriot."

[KrustyKidd]

I do not think that we will ever see an American style "democracy" in Iraq - thank goodness.

Yes, I like the Canadian stlye better, however, if you are in the middle of a war zone and on the fly, the US one will do quite nicely until things get down to some sort of normalicy in a few years. Myself, I prefer it to say Communism or a theocracy, even a Monarchy. People busy building their own lives, making things better for themselves as they have opportunity are much less likely to build belt bombs.

Freedon exists nowhere where the population is subservient to wealth or power or to an economic machine.

Really? What are you, or 'the population' not free to do?

I'm not wealthy and seem to do an awful lot. I've been all over the world, built a couple of sucessful companies, own a house and all, have friends, kids. Like, are you painted to the freakin' chair or what?

We, in your definition are all slaves to at least one thing or another, like apathy, greed, lust, ambition, empathy, sorrow, rage. Why not self betterment? Seems as good as any. To say that their being class divisions is true, money does that, same as party affiliation, education, geographic residency, beliefs, race and on and on. One of those that can be changed is wealth. Anybody can become wealthy given the right circumstances - ambition, education, inginuity, hard work and .....lots of luck.

The first step in getting over this 'vitim' mentality is to understand that you have control and that it is your responsibility, nobody elses. Work with me here, you actually have to believe in yourself as I am too busy getting on with my FREE life.

[Hugo]

Democracy needs nothing more than a substantial participation of the populace in the system or party.

If people are participating under duress, it is not democracy, any more than a rape victim is willing because she submits whilst being held at gunpoint. A one-party "democracy" is not a democracy, because it is not giving citizens a free choice or a chance to participate in the government.

It does not have Freeedom of the Press where all the major elements of the Media is controlled by six corporations.

This is a non sequitur. You state that the "major elements" of the media being controlled by 6 corporations means there is no freedom of the press, but without demonstrating how limited diversification of ownership automatically reduces press freedom, your argument falls apart.

I'm also amused that you think a very diverse press is essential to democracy, but having more than one candidate to choose from is not.

Where Capitalism is too strong, there is no complete personal freedom, no matter what the laws tell you. Are you free to tell your boss where to go. Certainly you are if you like the idea of starving.

You have your terms mixed up. "Freedom" or "liberty" is the freedom to do what you will and face the consequences, for example, going hungry because you told your boss to shove it.

What you are arguing for is called "license", and that basically means being able to do what you want and not be culpable. I don't think anyone wants to live in a society like that.

[Guest eureka]

Krusty!

Where is the slave mentality in what I posted? Or the victim mentality. I am happy that you feel you have all the personal freedoms. You should, however, give a thought to the less fortunate. Where there is substantial poverty, there is not personal freedom. I should think that is obvious. The poorer elements of society have very limited freedoms. As for telling the boss to "shove it," that is a luxury available only to those of independent means or special abilities.

You put it quite nicely when you suggest that we are all slaves to something. Slavery brings chains and I think we are all changed to something.

[Guest eureka]

Hugo!

A one party system does not mean that "people are participating under duress." The Soviet Union began as a "Vanguard Democracy' and matured into a one party democracy that degenerated into a totalitarian dictatorship. Many African countries were also one party democracies in their early stages.

Choice of representatives is not a necessary component of democracy. If the people support one ideal they can choose who is to represent that ideal. They do not need to hold elections to choose between many if they are all engaged in the party. You should not be amused by what I wrote but, instead, think about it.

Freedom of the Press is the single most important component of democracy since ot is there that public information is to be found. A coice of representatives exists no matter how many parties there are as long as the public participates in the parties.

I am afraid that it is you whi mixes liberty and license. Freedom is not the ability to do as you will "and face the consequences." Freedom is the liberty to do what is not prohibited by law. It also requires that a society provide the conditions for a citizen to do that without consequences that are extreme.

It is not a non-sequitor to say that there is not Freedom of the Press where it is highly controlled and concentrated. You have only to look at the recent history of the USA to understand that. The diversity of views is most certainly not represented. We have had some of it in Canada, too, with the all too familiar Aspers.

[Hugo]

The Soviet Union began as a "Vanguard Democracy' and matured into a one party democracy that degenerated into a totalitarian dictatorship.

Utterly, laughably incorrect. Please, read some history before you spout this complete and total horsecrap. It would be funny if you weren't metaphorically dancing on the graves of so many millions.

Lenin instituted a brutal, repressive regime from the word 'go.' He created the Cheka, or Soviet political police, to repress people with opposing viewpoints immediately he got into power. When he came to power, the majority of Russians did not support the Bolsheviks so he immediately clamped down on political opposition. Prof. R. J. Rummel, author of many books on state-sanctioned killing, believes Lenin was responsible for over 4 million murders. In 1901, Lenin wrote, "We have never rejected terror in principle, nor can we do so." He certainly didn't.

Lenin also created 315 slave labour camps, where political undesirables and those of certain class origins, such as the bourgeoisie, were sent to work in unspeakable conditions until they died an unnaturally early death.

Lenin directly ordered the Cheka to institute the Bread War, a war waged against the peasantry as a class. Entire villages were massacred. Because the Cheka had become so universally hated after these widespread atrocities, Lenin was forced to abolish it in 1922. It was immediately replaced by the same organisation with a different name: the GRU.

The statement you made above can be taken as true if you measure that "deterioration" in minutes.

Choice of representatives is not a necessary component of democracy. If the people support one ideal they can choose who is to represent that ideal.

You will never get all the people in a country to agree on one ideal. You can't even get all the people in a town to agree on one ideal. The sheer number of people who fled the Soviet Union should have clued you in to that.

Freedom is not the ability to do as you will "and face the consequences." Freedom is the liberty to do what is not prohibited by law.

No, it is not. If that is your definition of freedom, it falls apart, because each person's liberty would quickly strip another of his liberty. If you tell your boss to shove it and are not held responsible, i.e. you want to be paid anyway, somebody will have to pay you. Whomever is forced to pay you loses their freedom, because then they are being denied the freedom to dispose of their own property as they see fit. Do you see?

It also requires that a society provide the conditions for a citizen to do that without consequences that are extreme.

If I decide to shoot my veins full of heroin, will society prevent extreme consequences? A slow and painful death is an extreme consequence. How about if I rape and murder twenty women? Jail for life is a pretty extreme consequence. How about if I jump off a bridge? Stick needles in my eyes? What's society going to do for me?

It is not a non-sequitor to say that there is not Freedom of the Press where it is highly controlled and concentrated.

That's yet another non sequitur, right there. You have assumed that undiverse ownership of the press must mean that the press is highly controlled. You cannot assume that, you must prove that.

[KrustyKidd]

Krusty!

Where is the slave mentality in what I posted? Or the victim mentality. I am happy that you feel you have all the personal freedoms. You should, however, give a thought to the less fortunate. Where there is substantial poverty, there is not personal freedom. I should think that is obvious. The poorer elements of society have very limited freedoms. As for telling the boss to "shove it," that is a luxury available only to those of independent means or special abilities.

You put it quite nicely when you suggest that we are all slaves to something. Slavery brings chains and I think we are all changed to something.

Where is the slave mentality in what I posted?

You said

Freedon exists nowhere where the population is subservient to wealth or power or to an economic machine.

Then I said

Really? What are you, or 'the population' not free to do?

You then went on about how nobody can tell their boss to go ...... Is that my problem? Get better at what you do then tell him as you head out the door to freedom again .... and a better job. What is stopping you or them? See, that is what is the slave mentality, fear of trying, surety of failure. I know you understood it as you then posted this

You put it quite nicely when you suggest that we are all slaves to something. Slavery brings chains and I think we are all changed to something.

In the same way that some are slaves to their impulse tho help others. Like get real here.

I am not sure what you are on about here. Is it social programs for people that have a FREE VOTE like we all do or is it freedom like dictatorships and getting hands and heads cut off for minor infractions against the government? Please specify, I mean, you were on about Iraq then went on to talk about poor and bosses and such.

[Guest eureka]

KK!

You might sum it up by saying that there will never be the freedoms or liberties that most think we have. It is not possible without a primitive anarchy which would then impose limits of dominance. The best that society can do is to come as close as possible with the security of legal recognition.

I don't think it is too difficult to understand that Freedom is constrained where there is not economic freedom also. I have to think you are simply playing devil's advocate in this since it is obvious and a given in any form of society and with even the smallest insight into human nature and into the requirements for survival.

"Slave mentality" was your expression, not mine. I don't consider it a slave mentality to recognise the reality of existence. We may "kick against the pricks" but we cannot remove them entirely. Organised society cannot survive otherwise.

[Guest eureka]

KK!

You might sum it up by saying that there will never be the freedoms or liberties that most think we have. It is not possible without a primitive anarchy which would then impose limits of dominance. The best that society can do is to come as close as possible with the security of legal recognition.

I don't think it is too difficult to understand that Freedom is constrained where there is not economic freedom also. I have to think you are simply playing devil's advocate in this since it is obvious and a given in any form of society and with even the smallest insight into human nature and into the requirements for survival.

"Slave mentality" was your expression, not mine. I don't consider it a slave mentality to recognise the reality of existence. We may "kick against the pricks" but we cannot remove them entirely. Organised society cannot survive otherwise.

[KrustyKidd]

"Slave mentality" was your expression, not mine.

True, yours was

Freedon exists nowhere where the population is subservient to wealth or power or to an economic machine.

subservient >adjective  1 prepared to obey others unquestioningly; obsequious.  2 less important; subordinate.

-DERIVATIVES subservience >noun.

obsequious >adjective obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree.

-DERIVATIVES obsequiously >adverb obsequiousness >noun.

-ORIGIN from Latin obsequium 'compliance', from obsequi 'follow, comply with'

It is not possible without a primitive anarchy which would then impose limits of dominance. The best that society can do is to come as close as possible with the security of legal recognition.

You recognize that freedom is impossible withing society yet you still say this

Freedon exists nowhere where the population is subservient to wealth or power or to an economic machine.

People here are free to change their status, to get rich, to get por whatever. It seems that it is the degree of difficulty that is the problem, not freedom.

[Guest eureka]

Thank you for your lottle peek into Russian history - the obvious parts. I am also gratified to know that reality amuses you. Laughter never hurt. Perhaps, though, after your laughter is done, you would try to engage your nrain to absorb some knowledge.We can talk Russian history if you, at some time, show that you can understand and learn from history and do not recite pages from a history book. Those "facts" have to be put into a context and understood. However, to elaborate on what I posted earlier:

A "Vanguard Democracy is one where the population iin the mass is removed from the political system as was the case in Russia pre 1917. Only a small fraction of the people were involved in even the slightest degree and only a few could be classified as intellectuals.

That part of the population that was at all engaged, folllowing the revolution. formed a largely coherent group with the same aim. Its dream was to lead the populace at large into a democratic society. It formed a government of close to all who could be qualified so. That was a Vanguard democracy. the largest part of the population that cared at all was involved. The underclasses were not involved; did not want to be involved; and cared nothing about who ruled them provided they could survive.

A one party democracy is often the result of a an emancipation of colonies - not necessarily. The mass of the people adhere to the same basic philosophy of governance and come together as a single force. Other forces are not prohibited but they will have little effect.

That does not require that two or more opposing candidates must stand for an election. The party members - and the numbers of those determine whether the party is democratic - will have agreed on a representative. If a dissident wishes to stand, so be it. He will be unsuccessful and there will still be only one party represented.

As long as the people agree and the people are active in the party, that is democracy.

[Hugo]

A "Vanguard Democracy is one where the population iin the mass is removed from the political system as was the case in Russia pre 1917.

Autocracy is not any kind of democracy. Nicholas II convened a Diet but dissolved it when it didn't go his way. That is not democracy by anybody's standard.

I am also gratified to know that reality amuses you.

No, you amuse me. Your callous dismissal of so much murder, however, sickens me.

A one party democracy is often the result of a an emancipation of colonies - not necessarily. The mass of the people adhere to the same basic philosophy of governance and come together as a single force.

And you have an example of such a state?

Oh, I'll cut this short. You don't, because every one-party state had large numbers of dissidents that it had to exile, torture, shoot or otherwise silence.

As long as the people agree and the people are active in the party, that is democracy.

"The people" won't ever agree because you are talking about millions of individuals, not an anthill. Individuals all have different ideas. Look at the membership of the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP and you'll find that virtually all of them will disagree on one policy or another. They choose the party not because they agree, but because they disagree least.

[takeanumber]

At least they have a chance for democracy and the promise of a better life.

They have to make it happen.

You know, it takes a lot to go from a society where political disputes are settled by violence to a society where political disputes are settled through debate and institutions.

It takes a lot of time, effort, commitment and hiccups along the way, but any society is capable.

It used to be though that democracy was a distinctly protestant, Anglo-Saxon thing. Then, that theory was shattered by the French and Germans. Then it was though that it was solely a western European thing, and then that was shattered by the latin world. Then it was thought that it would never happen in Asia, and that has been shattered by Japan et al. Then it was thought that democracy couldn't happen in rigid catholic societies like Spain, and that was shattered in 1975. You don't even want to mention what the world thought of Africa, but South Africa has disproved that theory too.

It has also happened in Turkey. (How everybody forgets Turkey), and it can happen in Iraq too.

It CAN happen. It's very likely that Iraq just can't make it happen. But they have a chance.

[KrustyKidd]

It CAN happen. It's very likely that Iraq just can't make it happen. But they have a chance.

The reasoning is that Democracy is better than dictatorship. People with more control do better than those with little.

People that are doing pretty good are in a better postiion to influence others to do good as well like their nieghbors and such through increased trade and cultural exchanges that follow along with that in a natural form. People with better prospects for the future are less likely to become terrorists.

Iraq with it's fairly modern society, educated people and oil is probably the best possibility for creating an environment in the Middle East where democracy can reach realization.

Therefore, if it cannot work there it is unlikely to work anywhere.

The stakes are so high that they are not even though of by the normal person. If Iraqw fails then the US will probably not even bother to try it again. It will be back to either Dictator support or simply withdrawing unto themselves and wating for the first WMD attack. Then Armageddon on the perpetrator. No talks, support to take influence away from the terrorists, just a Patriot Act the likes never seen scince Nazi Germany and total retaliation. That's why the US will stay in Iraq and why it must be supported until it succeeds by everybody. There is no downside to a democratic Iraq but there is to failure, and it has global consequences.

[Guest eureka]

And so we go around the circle. Some day, democracy will come to Iraq. It will be the day when the West realizes that democracy is not brought by imposition. It will happen when enough people become educated enough to understand the simple reality that there are differing forms of democracy as I have tried to get across here. Apparently unsuccessfully as it would appear that so many cannot get beyond the mistaken idea that we have the only form and that political evolution ended with their PolySci 100 professor's teachings. Not you Takea number. Your last words are excellent.

One-party democracies! The Soviet Union following the initial set up: Several African countries that have now either gone beyond that or have collapsed largely because of the lack of support from the advanced world.

[Hugo]

One-party democracies!

I'm still waiting for a response to my latest rebuttal on that absurd point. Repeating yourself does not make you correct.

[KrustyKidd]

It will be the day when the West realizes that democracy is not brought by imposition

You impress me that you understand that democracy cannot be imposed but then in the same sentence show me that you are so far behind the times you're not even on the board.

While democracy cannot be imposed, the conditions for it to be implemented can. That is what is happeneing in Iraq. Dictator out, transitional government in and more than likely, the Iraqis will figure it out.

In order for democracy to be imposed, the US would actually have to vote themselves as democracy requires the participation of the people themselves. Hence, another falicy in that the people must choose their type of government or the 'maybe they don't want democracy' jibberish you often hear. By not making a decision into what type of government they want they already have made a conscious decision-by-indecision and have choosen not to have democracy.

Once again, the conditions are being set for the ability for the Iraq peple to have a democratic government, nothing more (as that would not be democracy but dictatorship) and nothng less as that would be babysitting.

[Big Blue Machine]

I think the US should install a new dicatator, one that they can control.