Democracy

[Eihab]

What is the U.S trying to do in Iraq is publishing the Democracy, and establishing a whole system based on democracy, but until now, it's failed and this failure due to many reasons, first of them due to the unfaithful American intention to establish this democracy, the other return to Iraqi people themselves and the perpetually seditions that will cause a civil war after the U.S military leaving, but the main problem is behind this question: what if the people in the occupied country "and many other similar countries" don't believe in Democracy, they believe in something else like the tribal system which the governor has the highest word, and the objection of governor is similar to the objection of God, actually all the dictatorship countries have strict laws that prohibit the people from criticizing the governor. You will face -two to five- years sentenced in jail "I speak about specific countries that I know, maybe the situation is worse in another" if you speak about the president in a way that the government think you reduces of the president's respect, and the people like this way in living. No they adore it, and sometimes they adore the president himself. Do you think that all the nations under the dictatorships government want real change to the democracy system? Maybe some of them have a faithful desire to change, but not all of them. I do believe if all the nations under the dictatorship regime want to change to democracy, they will strive to achieve this goal or at least they will do something to gain their freedom, otherwise how can you explain this number of nations in Middle East and Africa under the tyranny and they do nothing but prayer for their presidents, I know there are many prisons full of the prisoners who seek the freedom and the democracy, but I know another autocracy countries have no political prisoners, why they don't try to change these systems? The clear answer is: "they" like this way in living, they, "sorry" WE like the tyranny and dictatorship systems.

Any proofreading to what I wrote will be appreciated.

[Jamie (K)]

The US has successfully forced democracy on Germany twice, and the second time it stuck, and I doubt there are many Germans alive today who would prefer to live under a dictator. The US forced democracy on Japan, and that has also been a great success. The US has done the same with other countries, either by forcing democracy on them or helping them develop it themselves.

However, in all of those cases, democracy took root, because the Germans, Japanese and others are civilized people. Unfortunately, most Arabs are not very civilized, and are in fact quite primitive in their thinking and behavior. This is why the experiment is harder there. As one of my many Iraqi friends once told me, "The US made the mistake of thinking we're civilized, but we're actually animals."

[Eihab]

[Jamie (K)]

[Political Lurker]

[Prezbucky]

The New York Times isn't at all biased.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Political Lurker]

[Foah]

I wonder what was democratic having the choice between two miseries every 4 years. While in the meantime some rich cheaters have the occasion to fill their accounts by pressing huge amounts from governments and most politicians only see the chance to make a fortune by helping them.

How does that differ from ugly dictators or islamist terrorists. I only have to admit that people aren´t genocided that obvious and straight.


.

This is just a sequence of a movie that might help to see how incumbent democracy does work. Isn´t there really another way for humans to live together?
_________________
"Ho ho!" said the clown

[Prezbucky]

1. The New York Times is known to slant things in a manner by which the US -- motives, results, etc. -- is made to look less than savory. Doubtlessly they have world-class Weather and Sports sections... but when it comes to geopolitical news involving the US, well: it's "all the news that's fit to serve as a substitute for toilet paper."

Any op-ed or news-editorial copy in that liberal rag requires cognitive-lens scrutiny.

2. What is wrong with making money? Shouldn't people be free to make a fortune, as long as they do so within the framework of the law? Would you rather have NO or LITTLE economic freedom and rely on a bumbling government -- with interests of its own -- to take everyone's money and spit it out arbitrarily?

Free Enterprise is the best economic model because it rewards ingenuity, risk, perseverance. It punishes sloth, stupidity and (ultimately) failure. Would you take money out of the pockets of people who know how to maximize its utility -- jobs, investment opportunities, good products, etc... aside from the deserved reward of personal wealth -- and redistribute said funds to failures?

Really?

Leave the money in the hands of the person who earned it, and he'll create opportunities for others; steal his money and give it to morons, and they will waste it... and, if you're in the US, they'll have the gall to demand more of other people's money.

To answer the question of democracy:

- When people vote for dictators, they deserve the results
- When people vote for Communism -- as long as they retain that right to vote -- they deserve the results
- When people vote for a representative multicameral republic, they deserve the results.

Regardless of the type of government for which they vote, or those whom the voters choose to run said government -- democracy is best because people VOTE to choose their rulers. People here -- in the freest country on earth -- bitch about not having their voices heard. To me, the personal voice is most effectively represented by suffrage. Adults, men and women alike, vote to show their opinions. And I cannot think of a better way.

I disagree with probably every American on (at least) one issue. Even those with whom I hold all major points in common, well, we vary on degree. The ability to apply your arguments quantitatively, in a peaceful manner, is the best way to make sure all voices count.

IE, via the vehicle of democracy.

I am sad that the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan haven't yet caught on to the concept of peaceful democracy. If they dropped their weapons and decided to vote, we'd have no reason to be there. People blame us for lots of shit, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favor of armed resistance to DEMOCRACY.

What the FU$K kind of issue do you have with a person's right to vote? Are you stuck in a cave, using a club to decide your leaders? Assimilate yourselves into ancient Greece, fer cryin' out loud, drop your guns, and vote your opinion into law. It's not too difficult a concept, really... and then we can get the hell out of your country.

We aren't there for oil: I don't see US supertankers stealing Iraqi oil, and besides, there's all of OPEC to deal with. Russians have oil; heck, we have oil in Texes, the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. We have access to oil from countries other than Iraq.

We were in Iraq to remove their WMD (not found, but...) and Saddam, and in removing Saddam, to bring democracy. We are in Afghanistan to remove the despotic Taliban. Women there don't have many rights: girls don't go to school, girls don't learn to read, women don't vote. Aside from all the other benefits of freedom/democracy, those Afghani females' rights will increase tenfold. It is time to eradicate despotism from Earth, and I'm so sorry, but we're in Iraq and Afghanistan to do just that.

Like any human endeavour, democracy isn't perfect: sometimes voters get it wrong on any or multiple levels, and to varying degrees. The voters are human, and the politicians are human... a recipe for potential disaster, really. But it's the best system available.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Thirdgoblin]

[Political Lurker]

[Foah]

Hello Tom,

I´m sorry that The New York Times of all things is referred to in the sequence I linked to. But as I mentioned it is just a sequence of the complete movie or report made by an austrian. You should see it completely and you´d see how huge money is made and how the big earnings influence people and landscapes. It´s not the opportunity to make money but the way how outrageous profits are made.

There is nothing wrong with making money, but you´re talking about framework of law. I wonder whether there is one at all? Shouldn´t there be laws against ripping of landscapes and pressing the people living there to work for wages that hardly allow them a visit to their doctor when they suffer from illnesses they gain from work? Is it lawfully to make governments allow some cash-hungry cheaters to spoil landscapes with plants that don´t fit to the countrysite and have them destroy their natural environment for the short fortune and leaving a country that never will recover from that rape?

What useful is it for towns to sell their sewerage to private companies and pay lots of rent in order to be allowed the use? I agree that only stupid jerks can fall for such silly ideas just in order to win the next election. But mustn´t the people (who don´t have a choice than to fall for them/ if they have the choice at all ) be protected against such ugly practice?

I´m not talking about the USA only. There are many other countries where such practice is usual. But the US Gov like some European Govs claiming to be that democratically also claim to fight for human rights everywhere in the world and as soon as some mercenary swindler come to see some profit immediately forget their pledge for human rights and even support them ( ok, admitted: the reason for such exploitation must sound nice......usually is it help for development).

All the average people can do is to vote for their representatives who always keep their eyes closed......... every fourth year here where I live. What I wanted to say only is that democracy should be thought through every now and then.

Btw, dictators usually aren´t elected, neither are terrorist leader. They always use power of pressure
_________________
"Ho ho!" said the clown

[Eihab]

the U.S like any previous empire or any small country, put its interest in the first place, and we don't blame it for that, but even kids can't believe that America has occupied Iraq just for democracy or even to find the chemical weapons. America had known Saddam when it supported him "even before his war with Iran", it had known everything about his bloody history and how he had come to the power.
The American government had a good relationship with many dictatorships in Latin America, the Middle East, and in Africa. America is waving a democracy card when its interest has been threaten, and it has the right to defend itself by any way, but it doesn't has the right to support the tyrannies.
we hope this situation will change with the president Obama, who I do believe he is an honest man.

Proofreading welcomed

[Sunny15629]

Jorge W Bush thought that killing people is the way to get democracy and find Saddam. He didn't thought about Iraqi people, how they pass their daily life in this situation. He just thought about his self and how to get Iraqi oil. I think he has no right to make a warble situation in Iraq. He just did it for establish his father wrong way. If we walk in this way in future we situate a terrible world.

[Political Lurker]

_________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.