I totally agree that they have to decide the kind of democracy they want, not us. So when the Iraqi supreme court approves Maliki's request for moving the control of the Iraqi Central Bank from the purview of the Parliament to the Cabinet, effectively bringing it under control of one man, himself, that's just the kind of democracy they are going to have, it seems.
What is clear is that this was absolutely the plan 8 years ago when we invaded Iraq - to foment democracy movements and revolution in the region. It is working.
Last edited by reefedjib; 02-03-11 at 10:36 AM.
A couple of misrepresentations I keep seeing here have to do with the way people are being accused of standing against democracy if they express any concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood. Anybody who actually knows what the Muslim Brotherhood is all about realizes Democracy is not their aim, though they are quite willing to utilize the constructs of such for the short term as long as it suits their purpose.
It's not really being against democracy, but worrying about the potential for democracy to be undermined that is the issue here.
Another misconception involves the will of the people and the notion of human rights. The two do not always go hand in hand, especially when minorities or women are concerned, as the will of the people may involve a greater sense of self-determination for some, but it can cause the disenfranchisement of others. While the greater good CAN be promoted through democratic means, there is no guarantee that the implementation of nominally democratic structures will result in the greater good.
"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
Last edited by liblady; 02-03-11 at 10:57 AM.
Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:
These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.