Democracy in Iraq

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by JGrubbs, Jan 31, 2005.

  1. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Supporters of the Coalition of the Willing's occupation of Iraq postulate that a large voter turnout will demonstrate a strong justification for the administration's decision to attempt nation-building in Iraq. Other supporters, rather less convincingly, argue that a poor turnout will also justify it, since the decision of voters to stay away from the polls would show how strong the anti-democratic opposition is, and since American national security is dependent upon the liberty of others ...

    It's all irrelevant, of course, because the percentage of Iraqis participating means no more on Jan. 30 than it did in the previous election, when Saddam Hussein won 100 percent of the vote. What truly matters is how the election results are permitted to influence the makeup of the subsequent government.

    I was a little surprised when Colin Powell assured the world that the Sunni minority, which may or may not be boycotting the election, would be guaranteed positions of power. If you're not running for office and no one voted for you, then how democratic is a system that grants you electoral office anyhow?

    Even more worrisome are the rumors that "A formula is being actively sought to retain him [current Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi] as premier even if his showing is low" despite preliminary indications that his Iraqi National Accord party will receive only 8 percent of the vote and win only 22 seats of the 256 up for grabs in the Iraqi Parliament. In other words, vote for who you like, we'll choose the winner anyhow. One could hardly blame the poor, confused Iraqi who wonders how this Western-style democracy is substantially different from the previous system of pre-determined elections.

    But potential Coalition hypocrisies aside, the real problem may be if the will of the Iraqi people is allowed free reign. The party leading in the polls is the Iran-backed Shiite Unified Iraqi Alliance, which DEBKAfile reports is projected by CENTCOM's chief analyst Gregory Hooker to win a near-majority of 120 seats. Its leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, promises that while the Iraqi constitution will be based on Sharia, the government will not be a theocracy.

    One can't help but harken back to the last time that the United States sanctioned the removal of a dictator and his replacement with a popular Shiite ayatollah. While the destruction of the Hussein regime is without question a good thing, I am not so certain that his replacement with a potential Khomeini was what Bush and his neoconservative advisers had in mind when they embarked on their Mideast nation-building.

    Democracy, even in the corrupted sense of the limited representational form that now passes for the concept proper, has a very troubled history with regard to Islamic parties. Turkey is most often cited as the successful case, but few seem to recall that the Turkish military has directly interfered with the electoral process there four times since 1960, most recently in 1998 when it banned the most popular party in the Turkish parliament after forcing the removal of the nation's first Islamic government the year before. I rather doubt that anyone would consider America to be a healthy democracy if the U.S. Army were called out to cancel election results every time a Republican won the presidency, no matter how much the notion might tickle Hillary Clinton's fancy.

    Democracy is not a panacea, which is one reason why America's founding fathers feared it so. There is a reason that Aristotle considered it one of the three evil forms of government, along with tyranny and ochlocracy, after all. It has either brought to power or sanctioned the legitimacy of a number of infamous men including Alcibiades, Daniel arap Moi, Yasser Arafat and Adolf Hitler.

    Still, thanks to the U.S. president and soldiers from many countries, including America, the people of Iraq appear to have a chance to participate for once in determining how their lives are governed. I hope that they will be given permission to do so and that their choice will not only be wise, but honored by outside parties. And I certainly wish them well. But I also know that it is almost certain that the law of unintended consequences has unpleasant surprises in store for those arrogant enough to assume they can order the future to their liking.

    Source: WorldNetDaily
     
  2. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    The writer is obviously wrong in this statement. Unless he forgets that , in Saddam's election , everyone was forced to vote and the ballots were filled out before they showed up.
    I understand his point , but it means a whole lot more.
     
  3. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    The author of this article is an idiot. There was one name on the ballot under Saddam. There were over 100 choices on this ballot. If you didn't vote under Saddam, you would face the threat of being murdered. If you did vote yesterday, you faced the threat of being murdered by terrorists. The people of Iraq defied the terrorists and took hold of their destiny. The differences are so numerous that for this person to make that statement shows how stupid they are and how irrelevant their opinion is.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  4. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,639
    Likes Received:
    15
    What would Jesus do?

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  5. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Already dealt with this idiotic, brainless statement in my previous post.

    I was a little surprised when Colin Powell assured the world that the Sunni minority, which may or may not be boycotting the election, would be guaranteed positions of power. If you're not running for office and no one voted for you, then how democratic is a system that grants you electoral office anyhow?[/QUOTE]

    The majority party who was elected by the Shias will share the power with the Sunnis to foster enfranchisement and unity. You see, it isn't, as the isolationists have been saying, a power grab by the Americans or the Shia. They want a unified Iraq as much as possible with all who want freedom. If that is what the majority wants, then what's the problem? The media has been discussing this for the last few days that the majority Shia wish to unify the nation regardless of nationality or religious leanings.

    Even more worrisome are the rumors that "A formula is being actively sought to retain him [current Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi] as premier even if his showing is low" despite preliminary indications that his Iraqi National Accord party will receive only 8 percent of the vote and win only 22 seats of the 256 up for grabs in the Iraqi Parliament. In other words, vote for who you like, we'll choose the winner anyhow. One could hardly blame the poor, confused Iraqi who wonders how this Western-style democracy is substantially different from the previous system of pre-determined elections.[/QUOTE]

    I was watching the Iraqis yesterday. They sure don't look confused to me. They look downright satisfied and giddy. Why can't you and John Kerry be happy for them? The Iraqis will determine their own future, and America will encourage them to go in a direction that we think will be the best for them and us. But the final decision will be for them to make.


    But potential Coalition hypocrisies aside, the real problem may be if the will of the Iraqi people is allowed free reign. The party leading in the polls is the Iran-backed Shiite Unified Iraqi Alliance, which DEBKAfile reports is projected by CENTCOM's chief analyst Gregory Hooker to win a near-majority of 120 seats. Its leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, promises that while the Iraqi constitution will be based on Sharia, the government will not be a theocracy.[/QUOTE]

    The Iraqi Shia are different from the Iranian Shia. I have heard reports that this will be a secular government, not a theocracy. I think the author of this article is in denial.

    One can't help but harken back to the last time that the United States sanctioned the removal of a dictator and his replacement with a popular Shiite ayatollah. While the destruction of the Hussein regime is without question a good thing, I am not so certain that his replacement with a potential Khomeini was what Bush and his neoconservative advisers had in mind when they embarked on their Mideast nation-building.[/QUOTE]

    Are you referring to Kohmeni? Yes, we replaced one dictator with another. This is obviously different as we have replaced a dictatorial tyrant who was accountable to nobody (his own people, the UN, the EU, etc...) with a democratically elected leader who will be held responsible and accountable by the people of Iraq who have lived under the thumb of tyranny for decades.

    Democracy, even in the corrupted sense of the limited representational form that now passes for the concept proper, has a very troubled history with regard to Islamic parties. Turkey is most often cited as the successful case, but few seem to recall that the Turkish military has directly interfered with the electoral process there four times since 1960, most recently in 1998 when it banned the most popular party in the Turkish parliament after forcing the removal of the nation's first Islamic government the year before. I rather doubt that anyone would consider America to be a healthy democracy if the U.S. Army were called out to cancel election results every time a Republican won the presidency, no matter how much the notion might tickle Hillary Clinton's fancy.[/QUOTE]

    Democracy bad. Tyranny good. :rolleyes:

    He almost sounds like a caveman saying that. [​IMG]

    Democracy is not a panacea, which is one reason why America's founding fathers feared it so. There is a reason that Aristotle considered it one of the three evil forms of government, along with tyranny and ochlocracy, after all. It has either brought to power or sanctioned the legitimacy of a number of infamous men including Alcibiades, Daniel arap Moi, Yasser Arafat and Adolf Hitler.[/QUOTE]

    Democracy is not perfect, even as a representative Constitutional Republic is not perfect. But, it is certainly better than tyranny. Please see my thread about Democracy defeating tyranny for a broader discussion on why democracy is superior to tyranny:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/39/1329.html?


    Still, thanks to the U.S. president and soldiers from many countries, including America, the people of Iraq appear to have a chance to participate for once in determining how their lives are governed. I hope that they will be given permission to do so and that their choice will not only be wise, but honored by outside parties. And I certainly wish them well. But I also know that it is almost certain that the law of unintended consequences has unpleasant surprises in store for those arrogant enough to assume they can order the future to their liking.

    Source: WorldNetDaily
    [/QUOTE]

    Well, thank you to you and John Kerry for your begrudgedly given appreciation for the spread of the EVIL democracy. We all know that you really think Iraq would have been better off under Saddam, but we'll try to overlook your idiotic statements as the raving of a bitter, irellevant, sore loser trying to stay relevant when 52% of Americans have rejected your ideology and worldview that considers Democracy to be on the same level as tyranny.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  6. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stop the Evil Democracy and put Saddam back in charge? One might think so according to this idiotic article.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  7. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,639
    Likes Received:
    15
    The Man on the white horse is the only one who can settle this matter--even so come, Lord Jesus.

    Let us ensure Iraqi security is in place and "get out of Dodge".

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  8. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen. I believe that is the plan. It won't, however, happen right away. It will take some time, patience, and resolve if we are not to repeat the mistakes of Gulf War 1 and Cambodia.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  9. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think getting out of Dodge is the administrations plans, I think having a permenant military presence in Iraq to be used as a launching point to invade Iran, Syria, etc. as they continue "spreading democracy" around the Middle East is their plan.
     
  10. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course. You always have the worst possible senario in mind when talking about the president. When the Iraqi government is ready for us to leave, we will leave. We will, however, probably do what we have done in places like Germany after WW2 and build a base there with our ally, Iraq.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  11. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course. You always have the best possible scenario in mind when talking about the president.
     
  12. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    And thus far, I keep being proven correct. Perhaps you should try being less negative and obstructionist in your anti-war / Bush rhetoric and get on board the freedom train as it rolls across the Middle East. :D

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  13. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    But we have had our troops station in those places like Germany for how many years now?? What is the point of spending so much of our money to maintain a permanent military presence in so many different countries for such a long period of time?

    Are you saying that it is not part of the Bush administrations plan to invade Iran, Syria, etc.? These plans have been in place for many years and are just some of the dominoes that have started falling since the first dominoe fell on 9/11.
     
  14. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok. I invited you to take the ride on the freedom train, but I got to tell you, the train is about to leave the station and your anti-war / anti-freedom rhetoric is about to be left behind. All aboard! Woo-Woo! Chuga-chuga-chuga!

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  15. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    After you get done with your train ride through the Islamic Democracy in the Middle East to celebrate their freedom, you can come back to the USA and see if we can encourage those in power to focus on our borders, our US Constitution and our freedoms here at home that they have been taking away in the name of the "War on Terror".

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison
     
  16. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with you Joseph although some will be critical of the critism.

    It's difficult to believe people can't see the great positive that has just happened in Iraq and the message it sends to the whole world.

    Patrick
     
  17. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Double Post.
     
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can do both at the same time. My country is big and great enough to do that. Apparently yours isn't. Where are you from anyway?

    :D

    Source: The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to overcome tyranny and terror by Natan Sharansky

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  19. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natan Sharansky also said that "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and Democracy", I know that peace will only come after Jesus Christ comes back and destroys all the evil in the world.

    I would have to agree with John Quincy Adams and the rest of our founding fathers. They knew the dangers of Democracy and were sure not to make the US one, of course what they set up has been chipped away at for hundreds of years now, and most in power today would probably prefer a Democracy to the Constitutional Republic that was put in place.

    It only makes sense that the current administration would try to set up a Democracy here in the US after they accomplish spreading Democracy around the world. If Democracy is ever achieved in the USA then saving our great Constitutional Republic will be a lost cause, if it isn't already.
     
  20. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have free speech. We have free press. We have free elections. We have the right to emigration. We already have a form of Democracy. Your argument is irrelevant. But it does show how much isolationists such as yourself hate freedom.

    Joseph Botwinick
     

Share This Page

Loading...