Saddam, resolution 1441, and weapons inspections

[bradco]

"Of course he does."

Thanks for the quote, never seen him lay it out so straight forward like that. Do you have the source for that? The question is then how much this influences is foreign policy or whether or not it is some other factor. Ive always had a feeling that Bush has a crusade for democracy because of this. I dont question his intentions regarding it but more the method he goes about trying to reach the ends.

[myata]

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 If and when the external support is withdrawn, the feeble "democracy" will collapse and traditional power system would reestablish itself.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.

[KrustyKidd]

"Of course he does."

Thanks for the quote, never seen him lay it out so straight forward like that. Do you have the source for that? The question is then how much this influences is foreign policy or whether or not it is some other factor. Ive always had a feeling that Bush has a crusade for democracy because of this. I dont question his intentions regarding it but more the method he goes about trying to reach the ends.

Source

I don't believe that this actually has become his foreign policy but rather the direction it takes once dictators and repressive regimes are taken out of power. Normally, Saddam would have been taken out by a US backed coup after weakening him and a more western friendly dictator would have been set up in his place. While more difficult to carry out it speaks more of the farsightedness of the administration.

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.

The ousting of Saddam gave opportunity for many diverse factions to try and achieve power. Other than simply replacing him with another one, that was unavoidable. As well, in any society there are under pinnings of power as in local society and such. As you observed, it only takes time to sort it all out.

If and when the external support is withdrawn, the feeble "democracy" will collapse and traditional power system would reestablish itself.

Yes. It all takes time. Less time however than sitting there waiting for Saddam to give up power to allow free votes.

From the other thread;

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

My last post (unanswered)

Myata

Thanks for accepting all my arguments.

I accepted two facts which everyone knows to be true which still leaves all of your arguments flacid. Those two facts are that democracy cannot be imposed and nobody has the right to impose it. Saddam for example imposed democracy by forcing people to vote - for him. The US created the conditions in which people voluntarily voted on their own accord so your main argument that the US imposed democracy is false.

Myata

As for the last question, you should really work on your reading skills. The answers were proveded (hint: begin with "not up to you and me ..." and have something like "elections under gunpoint").

I did and the answers did not address the questions. I offer them once more;

What type of government the Iraqis should have had so, I take it that it should be up to them to decide themselves. That's ok with you right? I mean, holding an election is not such an absurd idea to you so they can determine which way they wish to go?

and ....

How come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

Myata

Seriously, it was already explained to you by other users that token elections in unstable and insecure condition aren't reflective of the will of population and cannot be equaled to real democracy.

65% of eligible voters participate under threat of death (a number that we in the west don't see participating at the polls) and you call that token? No wonder your arguments are screwed up. I also showed that control and security (while desirable) do not go hand in hand with democracy either.

Myata

They are simply an excuse the Bushes need to have at least some, however flumsy and incredible, justification to its absolutely unwarranted actions.

1441 gave them enough warrent to take action and Saddam was a threat to regional security. Reason enough.

[myata]

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.

[jbg]

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.

Germany after WW II?

[bradco]

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.

Germany after WW II?

democracy wasn't entirely foreign to Germany though... Even Hitler was first elected legitmately.

[KrustyKidd]

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.

Above where? Your previous dodging of the question did not address the questions so why do you think a rehash of the same crap will do better? As for insinuating that people of the Middle East do not understand democracy then why would they risk their lives to participate in it? Are you a racist who feels that they as a ethnic group are stupid or what?

As other posters pointed out, a democracy is lot more than going to the polls every so many years.

Other posters? You mean their inability to refute definitions of democracy except by personal beliefs? Since you seem to agree with those who think Hamas and Hezbollah are not democraticly elected, what is it then? The biggest gun? The best at controlling people or, perhaps, something the people choose that they wish, even though it may take a lot of workand risk to get to? If that's the case then I would feel that a majority of them spoke already by participating in the voting. They belive that things can get better by voting, but you, in all your wisdom believe that it will not. Glad you run a keyboard and not somebody elses life.

Then, again (3rd time? I lost count):

Lost count? Well you're the guy who won't answer two simple questions so I assume you'll keep on losing count as an ineffectual excuse to support your flacid arguments. You could always try alternatives such as feigning indignation at my persistancy of asking or..... how I have slighted you, been rude or whatever. The end result will be the same however and you would be guilty of being what you hate (as you admit yourself in your own code of debate)

bowing out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions

it's the Bushes & Co, who started the misaventure, for whom the time is ticking.

Very telling how you concentrate on Bush when the real enemy which is repressive gangs, groups and theologies get right off the hook with you. If bnot for them, the Iraqi people would be living a dream life right now.

Four years is very generous given the mess they created.

Is it? Saddam got over twelve years from you.

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.

Funny, you were willing to give Saddam and his clan eternity to keep on waging state terror, mass graves, ethnic cleansing and waging wars. Now you bitch about people willing to help and give grant the Iraqi people themselves an opportunity to have an actual say in their lives? And, stay with them to help.

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.

Yes, Saddam was getting ready to give up to the people themselves. Torture, control. Human rights abuses without end. Much better than democracy and the chance to choose. Are you communist by any chance? You sure come off that way. As per your avoidence of two simple questions by pretending to have answers somwhere in your previous posts, they are actually two direct questions and, you never answered either one.

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.

Uday and Quasay were groomed to take over. And, in Iraq, things are now amazingly faster than it would be waiting for them to die without heirs.

Now please, without hiding and telling us all how the answers are somewhere hidden in some other posting of yours, just answer the two questions (the first one I have rephrased for easier reading and interpretation);

What type of government the Iraqis should have had after the US took out Saddam? Is holding an election so absurd an idea to decide which way they wish to go the wrong thing to do?

and , the completely separate question of....

How come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

Bradco

democracy wasn't entirely foreign to Germany though... Even Hitler was first elected legitmately.

Yes, Hitler was chosen by democratic vote untl he wiped the others off the ballot . Democracy is not foreign to anybody. To say that Iraqis don't know how to choose or follow rules is a racist comment in submission.

[myata]

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.

[KrustyKidd]

Myata's definition of democracy (note no source provided);

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);

Webster's definition of democracy

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -cies

Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy -- C. M. Roberts>

4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Hamas and Hezbollah aren't democratic governments even though they may have been elected in apparently free elections

First, Hezbollah does not run any government as they are only a party in the Lebanese government. Thought you might like to get that fact straight. Second, Hamas was elected as you know and does control the Palestinian Parliament. As for being 'aparently free' they were free so no need to waffle on that one.

Final results show that Hamas won the election, with 74 seats to the ruling-Fatah's 45, providing Hamas with the majority of seats and the ability to form a majority government on their own. "Hamas won 44 percent of the popular vote but 56 percent of the seats, while Fatah won 42 percent of the popular vote but only 34 percent of the seats" according to the New York Times [1

and monitored by the international community as well.

After polls closed, officials and observers called the vote "peaceful"; Edward McMillan-Scott, the British Conservative head of the European Parliament's monitoring team described the polls as "extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence". His colleague, Italian Communist MEP Luisa Morgantini said there was "a very professional attitude, competence and respect for the rules."

Oh, and like the Iraqis, Palestinians consider their country to be democratic as well and turn out to the tune of 74%. Guess they didn't check in with you to learn that they were not democratic at all. Jokes on them

I'm not really in the mood to bounce bs around

Have you considered that possibly a discussion board is not your stronger venue? Perhaps you might consider making a blog with the 'allow comments' option set to 'off.'

[myata]

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.

[bradco]

"Myata's definition of democracy (note no source provided);"

best book out there on demoracy is:

On Democracy, Robert A Dahl, Yale University Press (2000)

He lists pretty much the same characteristics as Myata as necessary to be democratic. The more characteristics a state has the more democratic they are. The implication is that it takes more than free, fair and frequent elections to be democratic. Too many people share your minimalist interpretation of what exactly democracy means.

Dahl's argument would be ok so you have an election. But if theres only one choice is that democratic? If theres no freedom of association than not all parties are allowed to run.If you dont have freedom of the press than voters cant be truly informed or engage in debate that is necessary for "true"democracy which rests on ebing informed.

To Myata's list, from Dahl, I would add control of the agenda. You can have all the other aspects of democracy but if you dont get to decide what you have control over than your not truly in a democracy.

I would HIGHLY recommend Dahl's book. Interesting and educating and his writing style is really good. First 30 pages or so are a little dry as he gives background, history of democracy but once he gets going he puts forth a very good argument.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys, on the off-topic of democracy, I would encourage you to tap into the following thread:

Democracy, ... why bother?

Your current discussion would lend itself well to it.

[myata]

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

[jbg]

Very telling how you concentrate on Bush when the real enemy which is repressive gangs, groups and theologies get right off the hook with you. If bnot for them, the Iraqi people would be living a dream life right now.

The irony is that if an action is taken by the West to protect the West it's bad; if taken by a dictator, it's ignored. Exhibit "A" would be the environmnent. How many of these tree huggers had time to condemn Saddam for setting the Kuwaiti oil wells on fire as his forces fled. Would that have violated Kyoto?

Funny, you were willing to give Saddam and his clan eternity to keep on waging state terror, mass graves, ethnic cleansing and waging wars. Now you bitch about people willing to help and give grant the Iraqi people themselves an opportunity to have an actual say in their lives? And, stay with them to help.

Same comment as above, on leftist hypocrisy.

Yes, Saddam was getting ready to give up to the people themselves. Torture, control. Human rights abuses without end. Much better than democracy and the chance to choose. Are you communist by any chance? You sure come off that way. As per your avoidence of two simple questions by pretending to have answers somwhere in your previous posts, they are actually two direct questions and, you never answered either one.

Uday and Quasay were groomed to take over. And, in Iraq, things are now amazingly faster than it would be waiting for them to die without heirs.

What simply amazes is the self-loathing of these posters. Could one imagine they'd be able to run this kind of bulletin board such as this linked one (oh, I forgot, they're homophobes who like to diddle little kids, even though homosexuality is supposed to be a capital crime) without getting their heads chopped off?

Yes, Hitler was chosen by democratic vote untl he wiped the others off the ballot . Democracy is not foreign to anybody. To say that Iraqis don't know how to choose or follow rules is a racist comment in submission.

Truthfully, Germany did not have a democratic tradition. Hitler's election is Exhibit "A". With the benefit of hindsight, the US should have done a Macarthur style occupation, with the lengthy construction of a civil society, before returning the country to local rule.

[KrustyKidd]

Bradco

The more characteristics a state has the more democratic they are.

Exactly. So, not to have all means that you are not as democratic as a country that has more. It does not mean however, that your country is not a democracy.

My point - Iraq is a democracy. Albeit, a fledgling one.

Myata's - Iraq is not a democracy.

Myata

It was already pointed out that you can't make an argument by copy/pasting second hand thoughts. Even those from high school dictionary.

Yes, your argument is so effectual because, well, you just make them up without proof.

The following consider Iraq a democracy;

NationMaster

Dictionary.com

de‧moc‧ra‧cy  /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies.

1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4.political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5.the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Here, I'll let the Iraqi people speak for themselves;

Iraqi Constitution

We the people of Iraq who have just risen from our stumble, and who are looking

with confidence to the future through a republican, federal, democratic, pluralistic

system, have resolved with the determination of our men, women, the elderly and

youth, to respect the rules of law, to establish justice and equality to cast aside

the politics of aggression, and to tend to the concerns of women and their rights,

and to the elderly and their concerns, and to children and their affairs and to

spread a culture of diversity and defusing terrorism.

We the people of Iraq of all components and shades have taken upon ourselves to

decide freely and with our choice to unite our future and to take lessons from

yesterday for tomorrow, to draft, through the values and ideals of the heavenly

messages and the findings of science and man's civilization, this lasting

constitution. The adherence to this constitution preserves for Iraq its free union,

its people, its land and its sovereignty.

Definitely doesn't sound very democratic does it? Only 65% of Iraqis voted to adopt that constitution and it passed with a 78% majority.

Bradco

Dahl's argument would be ok so you have an election. But if theres only one choice is that democratic?

Looks like Iraq has that one beat hands down;

Summary of the 15 December 2005 National Assembly of Iraq election results Alliances and parties Votes % Seats Gain/ loss

United Iraqi Alliance 5,021,137 41.2 128 -12

Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan 2,642,172 21.7 53 -22

Iraqi Accord Front 1,840,216 15.1 44 +44

Iraqi National List 977,325 8.0 25 -15

Iraqi National Dialogue Front 499,963 4.1 11 +11

Kurdistan Islamic Union 157,688 1.3 5 +5

The Upholders of the Message (Al-Risaliyun) 145,028 1.2 2 +2

Reconciliation and Liberation Bloc 129,847 1.1 3 +2

Turkmen Front 87,993 0.7 1 -2

Rafidain List 47,263 0.4 1 0

Mithal al-Alusi List 32,245 0.3 1 +1

Yazidi Movement for Reform and Progress 21,908 0.2 1 +1

National Independent Cadres and Elites 0 -3

Islamic Action Organization In Iraq - Central Command 0 -2

National Democratic Alliance 0 -1

Total (turnout 79.6 %) 12,396,631 275

Bradco

If theres no freedom of association than not all parties are allowed to run.If you dont have freedom of the press than voters cant be truly informed or engage in debate that is necessary for "true"democracy which rests on ebing informed.

Iraqi Constitution

Article 36:

The state guarantees in a way that does not violate public order and morality:

A. Freedom of expression, through all means.

B. Freedom of press, printing, advertisement, media and publication.

C. Freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration. This shall be regulated by

law.

If I recall, Canada enacted the War measures Act which restricted some civil liberties for a period of time. It did not make us non democratic, just as it does not make Iraq's fledgling democracy less democratic.

Myata

BTW, I'm making a change in my posting policy,

Really? You mean you are going to actually answer direct questions and provide proof to back your arguments up with instead of

Myata's quote

bowing out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions

Remember these two questions that blow your previous arguments out of the water that you won't answer?

What type of government the Iraqis should have had after the US took out Saddam? Is holding an election so absurd an idea to decide which way they wish to go the wrong thing to do?

and , the completely separate question of....

How come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

Oh, guess you are not.

Myata

so this is the last time I'm commenting on posts empty of thoughts or devoid of information or logical argument.

Guess it's back to same-old-same with Myata doing the 'ostrich head in the sand' thing, calling anything he can't counter 'empty' and 'devoid of logical argument.'

[myata]

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.

[myata]

I would HIGHLY recommend Dahl's book. Interesting and educating and his writing style is really good. First 30 pages or so are a little dry as he gives background, history of democracy but once he gets going he puts forth a very good argument.

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.

[KrustyKidd]

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.

This is what you would call a post that is not

empty of thoughts or devoid of information or logical argument?

Yes, so thoughtful and logical Myata. Hate to be the one to point it out but, none of those were voted on in free elections by a majority of the people. rather, they were adopted by a centralized group of people who were inside party members in control of the people. In short, the people had absolutely no say in the matter making your comparisson just plain stupid.

And, you are right, mine is a winning argument.

A democracy is a complex mechanism that is wired into the fabric of the society by years and generations of evolution. .

It certainly does take time to make one such as ours. Possibly you can cut the Iraqi people some slack then instead of calling their society anything but democratic.

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

Well they certainly have to start somewhere. I would say that by having free elections they have made a great start. And, it was never forced on them so you can shitcan that stupid comment. The US deposed a dictator and then, allowed the people to choose what they wanted in free elections. They chose a parliamentary system of their own free will complete with 78% approval of a constitution. And, hate to remind you but, you seem to have a short memory span like another poster on this board. The Iraqi people were actually threatened NOT TO PARTICIPATE in the elections and approval of the constitution. Not forced to participate by arms and instead, of their own free will and enthusiasm for democracy particpated to the extent that shame most western societies. Now, do try to keep some reality in your flacid arguments.

Anyhow, we are back to the same two questions that are the crux of the argument. You know, the ones you cannot answer as it will make you look rather foolish. Instead, you dance around, call it illogical, say how you won't answer anything not origional yet cannot for some reason answer these two questions.

The first is importent because the US deposed a dictator under what many consider a UN mandate. So, being resposible for setting something up as a rule of law and helping the society, what should they have helped the Iraqis set up? Another dictatorship? A communist dictatorship? A monarchy? What? From what you are going on about ad nausium, anything but allow the people themselves choose.

The second has to do with your time frame where you say that democracy takes years and years to reach. So, given that you were willing to give a piece of crap like Saddam more than a decade of being in violation of over six life threatening prohibitions and fourteen resolutions, why is it you cannot afford the Iraqi people at least the same?

Just wondering. And, I know how you hate people who don't answer clear and direct questons so just answer them. Then you won't be quilty of

Myata

bowing out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions

[myata]

Yes, so thoughtful and logical Myata. Hate to be the one to point it out but, none of those were voted on in free elections by a majority of the people. rather, they were adopted by a centralized group of people who were inside party members in control of the people. In short, the people had absolutely no say in the matter making your comparisson just plain stupid.

And, you are right, mine is a winning argument.

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).

It certainly does take time to make one such as ours. Possibly you can cut the Iraqi people some slack then instead of calling their society anything but democratic.

Thanks for admitting the obvious. The rest is ignored as repetitous cyclical statement a la Krusty.

Well they certainly have to start somewhere. I would say that by having free elections they have made a great start. And, it was never forced on them so you can shitcan that stupid comment. The US deposed a dictator and then, allowed the people to choose what they wanted in free elections. They chose a parliamentary system of their own free will complete with 78% approval of a constitution. And, hate to remind you but, you seem to have a short memory span like another poster on this board. The Iraqi people were actually threatened NOT TO PARTICIPATE in the elections and approval of the constitution. Not forced to participate by arms and instead, of their own free will and enthusiasm for democracy particpated to the extent that shame most western societies. Now, do try to keep some reality in your flacid arguments.

"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 is importent because the US deposed a dictator under what many consider a UN mandate. So, being resposible for setting something up as a rule of law and helping the society, what should they have helped the Iraqis set up? Another dictatorship? A communist dictatorship? A monarchy? What? From what you are going on about ad nausium, anything but allow the people themselves choose.

The first part is ignored as obvious BS. The second part is ignored as repetitious cyclical statement a la Krusty.

[KrustyKidd]

Myata

Wrong. They (Cuban, Soviet and Chinese constitutions) 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).

Vote was approved as fair and open by the UN? Ooops Sorry, I am trying to pose a question to Myata, answerer of no questions as his word is proof enough.

"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.

I certainly wouldn't believe anything from sombody who believes the Cubans, Soviets and Chinese have constitutions that were voted in with 99.9 of the popular vote (or, any vote for that matter).

Myata, answering two simple questions as he beleives that not answering questions is ""bowing out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions""(questions were asked five times without reply)

The first part is ignored as obvious BS. The second part is ignored as repetitious cyclical statement a la Krusty.

Of course 'Camarade!'

[jbg]

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.

Could someone find and e-mail me a copy of the British Constitution?

[bradco]

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.

Could someone find and e-mail me a copy of the British Constitution?

It would be quite a few documents starting from the Magna Carta....dont mistake the lack of one single "consitution" for not having a constitution.

[bradco]

KrustyKidd:

Although I agree Iraq is a democracy, in a limited definition, I wouldnt get overly excited yet. With the absence of a strong democratic tradition and the environment that exists in Iraq Im very pessimistic about that countries future. Today its an incredibly fragile state and it wont take much to make it a failed state. If the US were to withdraw tommorow democracy would, in Iraq, have a shelf life of maybe a year in my opinion.

[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.

[myata]

Vote was approved as fair and open by the UN? Ooops

Yes, oops. Neither of the US or UK (as pointed out above by another user) constitutions were voted in the general vote which was approved as fair and open by UN. Keep trying to wiggle your way out, without admitting that neither formal peace of paper, nor formal going to the polls, by themselves, constitute democratic society.

"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.

I certainly wouldn't believe anything from sombody who believes the Cubans, Soviets and Chinese have constitutions that were voted in with 99.9 of the popular vote (or, any vote for that matter).

You can certainly believe in your own, private, alternative version of recent history. It's a free Universe.

The rest is your usual BS.