bblight said:
xpanda - are you saying that this election in Iraq doesn't mean anything?
No. I'm saying it might not mean a great deal in the long run. In the short run, it means the pro-war side feels legitimate in their means to instill democracy.
Look, I of course think democracy is the best possible system of gov't. If I didn't, I wouldn't still be living in Canada. But I think the pro-war types are allowing democracy in Iraq to legitimise their chosen method of encouraging it, eliminating the possibility of exploring other options.
Let me ask you this: if Bush (or Clinton for that matter) had simply backed a Shi'ia revolution and the end result were free elections, would you think that as good a thing as you do now? Because it seems to me that most of you aren't so much excited about democracy in Iraq as you are using Sunday as evidence that the war was worth it.
I have always stated that there were other ways to oust Saddam than blowing Iraq to bits. Tens of thousands have died, and not by their own revolution. Would the American revolution mean as much to your country if France had done it for you?
Iraq was living under a stalinistic regime where the leadership had no qualms about using WMD on large population centers of it's own people - murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians, just to quash a few disidents. In 1990, Bush senior failed these people by showing them the door to freedom and then slamming it in their faces - allowing Saddam to go on a murder spree that harkens to the holocaust.
Please stop with the 'why Saddam had to go' usual rhetoric. It still doesn't justify war when other options were available. Unless the threat is imminent, war should not be an option. Period.
Many of the Iraqi voters this past weekend put their lives on the line just to go out and vote - and some 40 or 50 actually paid with their lives just to vote! And you say "I still believe, despite Sunday's turnout, that democracy means more -- carries more weight and commands respect from the powers-that-be -- if it is a hard-fought battle by the people, not some outside force." Hard fought in what way? Are you saying that the dozens of Iraqi's who die every day while trying to create and become a part of this new government aren't fighting hard? Are you saying that the brave people who ignore the threats of the insurgents and terrorists and put their lives on the line every day aren't fighting hard.
The democratic revolution did not come from the Iraqi people. It came from the Americans. If you take the Americans out of the equation (and this will happen, probably when there are no valuable resources left to protect, or geopolitics lightens the burden) will the leadership in Iraq feel that removing democracy from the system will be met with resistance? Would the likelihood of resistance (or at least the perception) increase dramatically had the Iraqi people themselves braved life and limb,
all on their own and risen up against oppression?
You're in a bar and guy A is mouthing off to you. His friend beats the crap out of you. Two weeks later, you see guy A without his friend. How afraid of him are you?
xpanda - I think you're sincere in your beliefs, but you aren't as well educated about what constitutes "hard fought" as you should be.
The Iraqis did not fight for democracy of their own accord. The Americans have installed it for them. The Americans could just have easily installed another dictator; what would the Iraqis have done, then? Probably nothing, if history is a guide.
... this move for a Democracy in Iraq is a stake in the heart of Islamo-Facism, and the Iraqi's are bearing the brunt of their anger.
Maybe, we'll see. But there are plenty of democratic nations on this planet who have had their share of terrorism. Mine and yours, to name a couple. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
I see that the left is holding up Zakaria's article and statements as an example of the failures of the program, while ignoring all of the others who are hailing this as a great success and the birth of a new, democratic government.
I am only quoting two sentences of his last night. I've not read anything by him. Further, I've said for two years now that a war was not necessary. Despite what you may believe, I tend to think for myself.
