Kandahar

Well of course he's going to say that. He's an Iraqi MP...not exactly an unbiased observer, as his power DEPENDS on "democracy."

I'm not seeing any evidence here that democracy is going to "take" just because we've allowed voting. The tribe mentality is clearly stronger than the democratic mentality.

__________________
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
What?
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Billo_Really

Obviously, you see the emporer's new clothes. Aside from that, your ad hominum regarding my source is a moot point. If you paid more attention, you would have seen that the actual source is a matter of public record.Just because you can't face reality, don't put that on me!

Billo_Really

I guess you're gonna lie 'till ya die!

They "told" us "...we can leave anytime." They told the world, they "...want Blackwater out of their country." Stop acting like were welcome.I've already proven you wrong on this. Sorry, your feeble attempt at a bait and switch is not going to work with me. We pressured them to write a constitution while they were in a state of war. And THAT, is a violation of international law.When they start targeting ambulances, innocent women and children...............absolutely!


BTW, thanks for proving my point!

Kandahar

Republicans don't campaign on a platform of "I'll do what's best for all Republicans, and stick it to the Democrats." Or vice versa. Voters in both parties generally vote for national candidates that they think will be the best for the nation as a whole.

That is not the case in Iraq. There aren't many real differences in political views between the Arab Sunni and Shia, other than who will be the primary beneficiaries from the policies they advocate.

I think Algeria is a good example. In 1991, Algerian voters got the chance to elect a new legislature, for the first time in their history. They were sick of their old government, so they elected Islamists (with no commitment to democracy) by a huge majority. This led to a civil war.

For more recent examples, we can see the Palestinian election of Hamas a couple years ago, or Hezbollah and the Islamic Brotherhood picking up huge amounts of seats in the Lebanese/Egyptian legislatures.

Surely no one would argue that these groups have any commitment to democracy. The voters were simply sick of the incumbent governments, and saw voting as a short-term solution to getting rid of them.

Right, but we didn't impose a despot on them. We imposed democracy on them. The fact that we had other options available doesn't change the fact that we imposed a form of government on them, that they didn't understand and were not accustomed to.

The Romans and British had the same conceit that THEIR forms of government were the best for everyone in the world. This is evident in the types of administrations that they set up in the areas that they conquered.

Because it ignores the question of WHY democracies don't war with one another. Does voting magically eliminate all tension between nations? I think not.

A better explanation is this: The types of culture that support democracy are generally more open and liberal than other cultures, and open/liberal societies are generally less likely to war with each other. In other words, it's not the democracy itself that causes peace; they're both caused by other common factors. Therefore, if you forcibly give democracy to a society that is NOT open/liberal, there's no reason to believe that it would behave the same way.

Freedom and democracy are not synonymous. Like I said in my first post, I consider myself a "capitalist globalist" (neoliberal) rather than a "democratic globalist" (neoconservative). That seems like a much more sensible goal than spreading democracy, since the principles of economics are not nearly as variable as the political cultures of various countries.

...none of these things require democracy.

This is closer to the truth. Freedom of the press and voting are important aspects of democracy, but neither is sufficient in itself to label a country democracy. And surely no one would suggest that Iraq has freedom of the press. At the very least, that would require some kind of political stability. But really there isn't much evidence at all that Iraqis are prepared to embrace the concept of allowing various viewpoints to be heard.

__________________
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
What?
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Kandahar

How many Shiites voted for Sunni candidates? How many Sunnis voted for Shia candidates? Is this because of a genuine difference in political opinion between regions, or because they wanted to elect the guy from their clan?

__________________
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
What?
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Billo_Really

I'm not a democrat, but was a republican for 20 years who voted for Reagan (twice). Last week, my signiture was, "I like Ron Paul!"

So much for going tribal...

Trajan Octavian Titus

Telling us we can leave is not the same thing as telling us TO leave, that statement was made in frustration for the DemocRAT party denouncing the inadquecies of the Iraqi government.

That's because of the insurgents propaganda, blackwater was fired on by insurgents while they were defending a U.S. embassy convoy; furthermore, they threatened to kick out blackwater they never actually kicked them out and since then they have backtracked and are no longer threatening to kick them out:



You ****ing liar infact you conceded the point because I took you to the ****ing woodshed:

You here that people according to Billo here Constitutions written by Democratically elected governments and ratified by the masses are against international law. YOU'RE ****ED IN YOUR HEAD!

LMFAO they targeted the murdering thug Nawab Buntangyar.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Doesn't matter you can have a pluralist Democracy under a hegemonic exchange model, the Iraqi government is much like that of the Lebanese IE under the Iraqi Constitution the President is always Kurdish, the Prime Minister is always Shiite, and the Assembly Speaker is always going to be a Sunni, so ofcourse what's going to happen is voting across ethnic lines, but that's not a tyranny of the majority that is a hegemonic exchange model power sharing agreement.

Kandahar

If the outcomes are predetermined, then it isn't a democracy at all. What's the point of voting in the first place if the voting doesn't matter?

And if you're referring to the legislature, then a tyranny of the majority is EXACTLY what it is. None of the major political parties have a national agenda. None of the major political parties try to bridge ethnic divides. None of them even urge reconciliation, except as a means for their faction to gain more power.

The only party that tried to do that was Iyad Allawi's, and Iraqis of ALL factions overwhelmingly rejected it.

__________________
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
What?
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Trajan Octavian Titus

The outcomes are not pre-determined they can elect who ever they want within the parties who are vying for control of each of the three main power brokers IE you've got the Shia parties contending for the prime-ministership, the Kurdish powers contending for the Presidenship, and the Sunni parties contending for the position of Assembly speaker, it is set up this way in order to prevent a tyranny of the majority this is a common system of governance in Democratic states with significant ethnic tensions in that it insures that all ethnic divisions get a say and that they are all represented.

The voting DOES matter.

Completely fallacious the Iraqi Constitution is set up in such a way that it is impossible for a tyranny of the majority to form in that insures that no matter what all parties will be represented.