can iraq cut it as a democracy

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
Well maybe I just don't take kindly to being accused of suffering from delusions. You attacked me. Not the post. re-read what you posted

Nonsense. I described your opinions as dilusional. Get over it for goodness sakes.
I don't see you taking any action against people who say I'm on drugs ? Or is that because you agree with their politics ? Who else in these threads have you posted an admonishment to ?

Nobody has asked you for dubious newspaper reports.

But that's all that you and those who share your opinion ever post.

Actually. I was wrong earlier. This is boring.

Then don't post. No one is forcing you.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by monument
Maybe, but why democracy? I would go for a free and good one person ruled state who shared my views then a bad democracy state where people are homeless, going hungry, ruled by fear, etc...

My point been, could you please point out a "free" democracy state.

There is no such thing as total freedom in any society. By necessity there are restrictions on individual freedoms. The best one can hope for is that these freedoms and restrictions have at least some relation to the will of the people rather than purely imposed from above.

So you would go for a one person ruled state. If the recent nationwide poll in Iraq is to be believed, this is very much a minority point of view with 90% expressing a preference for democracy.

There seems to be a sentiment floating around that because democracy is believed to be a 'Western' idea that countries not in the 'West' should not be allowed it. Is this not an arrogant point of view?

Of course, you could always argue that the 90% majority is irrelevant, since the idea that the majority should influence things smacks of Western democracy.

monument

Originally posted by SkepticOne
There is no such thing as total freedom in any society. By necessity there are restrictions on individual freedoms. The best one can hope for is that these freedoms and restrictions have at least some relation to the will of the people rather than purely imposed from above.

So you would go for a one person ruled state. If the recent nationwide poll in Iraq is to be believed, this is very much a minority point of view with 90% expressing a preference for democracy.

There seems to be a sentiment floating around that because democracy is believed to be a 'Western' idea that countries not in the 'West' should not be allowed it. Is this not an arogant point of view?

Of course, you could always argue that the 90% majority is irrelevant, since the idea that the majority should influence things smacks of Western democracy.

Yes, if idealistic things were meet, (but if other idealistic things were meet I'd go for a democratic states). However, just like democratic states, I have yet to see a very good one. So, in the real world - no.

Do you real think the current models of democratic systems are the best humans could ever come up with? I don’t think so, but in many states – including our own - the clock is currently going back on democracy.

(BTW I was quoting the word free because it was what chill had said in another post. We get stupid thing when some people are free to do some things.)

voice

Answering the first Question:

YES. Iraq can be a democracy, but not necessary a secular democracy.

the question. Would US allow it? if by DEMOCRACY (the rule of people), Iraquis chose an Islamic form of Democracy (not necessary like Iranian Democracy) that may not fit well in the US agenda, would US respect the Iraqi's choice?

Sand

the question. Would US allow it? if by DEMOCRACY (the rule of people), Iraquis chose an Islamic form of Democracy (not necessary like Iranian Democracy) that may not fit well in the US agenda, would US respect the Iraqi's choice?

Would the US really have a choice?

The Sunni Triangle is giving them enough bother without getting the Shi'ite majority on their back as well. The Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah appears to be getting a fairly large say in how things will be in the future Iraq for that very reason - luckily enough he appears to believe in a certain division of government and faith (couldnt really say Church could I ? ) - he is apparently not in favour of an Iranian style government and his view on the constitution seems to be limited to saying that it should reflect Iraqs Islamic character which is fair enough given the hoo-rah over God being mentioned in the EU constitution and the US oath of allegiance showing that its still an issue in our more mature democracies. The US administrators are taking his views seriously - pretty much because as Ive said they have to keep him sweet.

voice

Though they had trouble on ground. Politically they have the choice.
They can cooperate help establishing an elected government.. then showing the world that US really wants democracy.
or they can bring up endless execuses to keep the situation or may be bring a Saddamic person to help them control the situation.

they can conduct at least a referundum to know what the iraqis want!

lili

Originally posted by voice
Answering the first Question:

YES. Iraq can be a democracy, but not necessary a secular democracy.

the question. Would US allow it? if by DEMOCRACY (the rule of people), Iraquis chose an Islamic form of Democracy (not necessary like Iranian Democracy) that may not fit well in the US agenda, would US respect the Iraqi's choice?

that is the question.
by the way US has shown a bizarre example of democracy by going into this war in an undemocratic way.

Sand

They can cooperate help establishing an elected government.. then showing the world that US really wants democracy.

or they can bring up endless execuses to keep the situation or may be bring a Saddamic person to help them control the situation.

I dont think theyll be making up exscuses - theyre currently getting the hell out of dodge come next June when theyll be handing over power to the Iraqis, in whatever shape or form their government may take at that time.

They will certainly try to bring about the election of a friendly or at least neutral government - thats only practical, theyre hardly going to be encouraging the election of a hostile government.

The basic situation is that the US does not have much room for maneuvere - Bush is in election mode - regardless of his nefarious schemes to suck Iraqs oil supplies dry he will not get re-elected if US soldiers are dying in droves in Iraq. Thats just a political reality - Democrats candidates are shifting their strategy from attacking Bush on the economy because its actually picking up now to attacking him on the Iraqi war and the reconstruction of Iraq.

Bush and the US administration simply cannot afford to annoy the Shi'ites because things are bad enough as they are without them also taking up arms in a holy war against the american infidel as well. Hence the Iraqis will get whatever government they want pretty much - or rather whatever government is broadly agreeable to both the Americans and the Shi'ite majority - anyone who disagrees with that choice of government will most likely be the Iraqis problem then, though it is extremely likely the Kurds will get a lot of independance from Baghdad. Given the Americans relative weakness theyll find quite a lot broadly agreeable compared to leaving troops in there longer than they absolutely have to.

they can conduct at least a referundum to know what the iraqis want!

Thats one of the major barriers to simply holding elections straight away - Iraq has been a dictatorship for several decades and what elections were held were only for show and were completely and utterly rigged. Basically a register of all eligable voters will have to be compiled pretty much from scratch and given the local political traditions election rigging will have to be carefully watched for. In a country of close to 30 million people it isnt something to be done overnight - Ive heard predictions of nearly 2005 before direct elections will be possible.

voice

Good argument Sand.

The fear of Iraqis would be if that "Friendly/Neutral" Government would be democratic or another US-friendly dictator ! ofcourse US is looking after their interest.. i hope that their interest would go along with iraqi people interest.

US can't afford to face the Shi'a but also the Shi'a repressed for so long can't afford to face the US. yet there is mistrust between the two..

1. Shi'a remeber that US supported Saddam over their Shi'a brothers in Iran. US let them down in their revolution '91.. and they say that US actually helped Saddam killing that revolt by allowing him to use Helicopters


2. US. is wary about the Shi'a ties with IRAN, and are very suspecious that any Shi'a majority governemnt, or governemnt of islamic style would be Anti-US.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by voice
Good argument Sand.

The fear of Iraqis would be if that "Friendly/Neutral" Government would be democratic or another US-friendly dictator ! ofcourse US is looking after their interest.. i hope that their interest would go along with iraqi people interest.

Why would a democratic government be one of the fears of the Iraqis? I can understand them fearing another dictatorship, US friendly or otherwise.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Why would a democratic government be one of the fears of the Iraqis?

I guess it depends on what form of democratic government it is, and how it behaves relative to the individual's own ideals.

Relatedly....I notice the democratic US is advising the democratic Taiwanese not to undertake a democratic process of self-determination, but that they should instead move away from unilateralist actions and instead only take certain actions when agreement with the other concerned non-democratic parties has been reached.

Yes, I know its off-topic, but what I'm trying to point out is that the age-old notion of "democracy good, non-democracy baaaaaad" is simply too binary to hold. Its a lot more complex than that.

jc

monument

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm trying to point out is that the age-old notion of "democracy good, non-democracy baaaaaad" is simply too binary to hold. Its a lot more complex than that.

That’s pretty much what I was trying to say, but for some season I didn’t just say it.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
I guess it depends on what form of democratic government it is, and how it behaves relative to the individual's own ideals.

Yes obviously.

What I'm questioning is the basis of the statement that the Iraqi's fear democratic goverment:

"The fear of Iraqis would be if that "Friendly/Neutral" Government would be democratic or another US-friendly dictator !"

The above is a fairly general statement. It is not saying that there are specific conditions under which the Iraqis would fear democracy.

Why in general would the Iraqis fear having a democratic government?

Relatedly....I notice the democratic US is advising the democratic Taiwanese not to undertake a democratic process of self-determination, but that they should instead move away from unilateralist actions and instead only take certain actions when agreement with the other concerned non-democratic parties has been reached.

Yes, I know its off-topic, but what I'm trying to point out is that the age-old notion of "democracy good, non-democracy baaaaaad" is simply too binary to hold. Its a lot more complex than that.

Complex or not, what bearing does what the US is telling Taiwan have on the issue of whether or not Iraq should have a particular form of goverment?

So if the US had told Taiwan something different that would change your views on whether Iraq should have democracy?

voice

The fear of Iraqis would be if that "Friendly/Neutral" Government would be democratic or another US-friendly dictator !


oops.. correction

The fear of Iraqis would be if that "Friendly/Neutral" Government would be NOT-democratic or another US-friendly dictator !

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
what bearing does what the US is telling Taiwan have on the issue of whether or not Iraq should have a particular form of goverment?

I didn't say it had any bearing on that. I said that it illustrates nicely how the blind concept of "democracy is good, non-democracy is bad" is simply insufficient.

We have the US saying that the interests of a non-democratic nation (China) are more important to it at the moment than the right of a democratic nation to democratically choose its own future.

In case you still don't see it, that would mean that the US sees the democracy as being worse for that situation right now than the communist government. It shows that the whole "nothing to fear from democracy" doesn't hold true.

So if the US had told Taiwan something different that would change your views on whether Iraq should have democracy?

Look at the one line I was responding to. I quoted it for a reason - it was the point I was addressing.

I was explaining why democracy may be feared, or not universally welcomed. I gave two reasons - one being that it may not fit the ideals of some individuals, and the other being that democracy isn't always just goodness and happy shininess.....which means that sometimes its a bit dark in various ways.

You admit that there may be reasons to fear democracy, but go on to ask again why people would fear this particular democracy. I don't understand how you can do that.

Do you have some insight into what democracy will be put in place? Do you know that it will protect the minority groups in Iraq rather than giving the majority a licence to rule over them abusively? Do you know that it won't be a US-puppet government, with only US-approved candidates allowed to stand, resulting in a new US colony where the ideals of the western world are pushed to the detriment of existing culture and/or religion?

No, you don't know any of this. Nor do I. And no matter how doubtful we would agree that any of this is going to come to pass , we have the luxury of not living in the country where this is all taking place, so we are just idly speculating on someone else's future. The Iraqi people don't have that luxury.

They see their future being shaped by someone else, based on that other person's ideals and wants.

If I was there, I'd have concerns about what the US was letting me in for. At its very simplest level its fear of the unknown.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Do you have some insight into what democracy will be put in place? Do you know that it will protect the minority groups in Iraq rather than giving the majority a licence to rule over them abusively? Do you know that it won't be a US-puppet government, with only US-approved candidates allowed to stand, resulting in a new US colony where the ideals of the western world are pushed to the detriment of existing culture and/or religion?

No, you don't know any of this. Nor do I. And no matter how doubtful we would agree that any of this is going to come to pass , we have the luxury of not living in the country where this is all taking place, so we are just idly speculating on someone else's future. The Iraqi people don't have that luxury.

Not really what I was getting at at all, I'm afraid. I was questioning a statement to the effect that the Iraqis feared having a democratic government - not making a statement about what sort of government I believed the the Iraqis should have.

It does not matter now because the statement I was questioning was mistyped and the opposite was, in fact, meant.