Slashdot Mirror
January Elections in Iraq?
bettiwettiwoo writes "Last week Kofi Annan claimed, in a BBC interview, that: 'You cannot have credible elections [in Iraq] if the security conditions continue as they are now.' Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi disagreed ('pointedly disagreed', according to the International Herald Tribune):'We definitely are going to stick to the timetable of elections in January ... Democracy is going to prevail and is going to win in Iraq.' According to Tony Blair: 'The people who are trying to stop that Iraq coming about, who are engaged in killing, maiming and acts of terrorism, are people who are opposed... to every single one of the values that we in countries like this hold dear.' Iraq the Model points to an IRI poll which states: 'In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. Expanding on the theme, 77% said that "regular, fair elections" were the most important political right for the Iraqi people and 58% felt that Iraqi-style democracy was likely to succeed.' It would appear that the poll was undertaken sometime in July/August this year, but if such a large majority of the Iraqi population continues to favour elections, would it really be fair to the Iraqis to postpone the January elections whatever the security situation and whomever might be against them?"
I took at a poll on job satisfaction at a Bush rally and it was around 95%. I guess America thinks Bush is doing a bang-up job!
if there's parts that are not under the control of those arranging the election...
maybe the information minister had a face/off operation.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections.
You mean, 87% of Iraqi RESPONDENTS indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. This is a self-selecting question: people likely to respond to a poll are more likely to go to the polls than people who don't respond to a poll. At any rate, everyone outside Iraq believes that Iraqis should have the right to self-determination. We believe the same thing of the people of China. But it wouldn't be a smart thing to invade China to effect that.
PS: Did anyone happen to look at who IRI is?
RI's board of directors is chaired by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and includes former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, current members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and individuals from the private sector with backgrounds in international relations, business and government.
Yeah, this is ENTIRELY independent. Mind you, at least one member of the board has some independent ideas.
Q - I thought President Bush said in his speech that, "Either you're for us or against us....anyone who harbors terrorists, or fosters their activity," and he meant terrorists in general. Doesn't Saddam qualify?
...We need to be skillful about this. We need to use scalpels, not sledgehammers.
A - We've got to be looking at priorities here. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have one thing in common, and that is they both hate the United States. Otherwise, they have very little in common.
As a matter of fact, my guess is, if it weren't for the United States, Osama bin Laden would turn on Saddam Hussein. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is the head of a Ba'athist party -- a secular, socialist party. He is anathema to the kind of world that Osama bin Laden wants to reinstall So he's part of the problem; he's not part of the solution. That doesn't mean they can't cooperate, and might not cooperate. But what I'm saying is we need to get our priorities straight, and we've got them straight right now. We're going after number one target.
Iraq could turn out to be number two, but there are a lot of other candidates. Hezbollah, for example, is a global terrorist network, which has attacked the United States and U.S. interests before. How about that?
I'm sure there will be some kind of election in Iraq in January - there's too much at stake politically for Blair and Bush for it not to happen.
However, what happens if they don't like the result? I see one of two outcomes being more likely than the interim government being re-elcted and legitimised:
(1) They are re-elected, but international monitors (the UN etc.) do not agree that the election was free and fair. To some extent this is what Kofi Anan is already worrying about.
(2) Ignoring whether (1) is the case or not, what happens if the result of the elections is not what Bush/Blair want? What if an Iran-style shia religious party is elected? This is the problem with democracy - it doesn't always give you the answer you want. The US was quite happy with democracy in South American until socialists like Allende started being elected in Chile and elsewhere. Then they sent in the CIA and regimes like Pinochet's were the result. Is this the future that the middle east has to look forward to?
Since we are talking of democracy, the democratically appointed Kofi Annans opinion surely weighs more than that of the US installed Iyad Allawi.
Also at the risk of being modded off topic I'd like to make a genaral statement on international terrorism.
Recently a proBush stance by a columnist in my local free rag (Galway, Ireland) attracted a letters page full of rebukes. The columnist in question retaliated by saying that global terrorism is the biggest threat to "the world" today (it's not, poverty is) and that George Bush is the only solution. Well I agree that terrorism is a huge problem but ya know if the British government had listened to the plight of the Catholics in Northern Ireland in the sixties, there would be no IRA today. With aid reconciliation and understanding. Attempts to understand the root causes of support for radicalism ie. war, alienation and poverty are often met with more success then hate.
Hate breeds hate. Radical action breeds radical reaction. Stop bombing people into the ground and it just might not happen to you.
If you think I'm talking waffle then google 'canary wharf IRA' and compare that with last weekends round of talks where sworn enemies are now sitting around a table to talk.
There is a way out and it is not about increased defence spending, unethical imprisonment and unilateral invasion.
It is about putting peace before closing your eyes to world suffering.
Get informed
cL0h
The quote is taken out of its relevant context. Another way to rephrase the quote could be:
Military gangwar is part and parcel of the current conflict. The feudal ganglords will not cede authority easily. Those with support (military and political) will bargain for power in the same manner as the Afghani process. Suspicious one-candidate boundaries will be drawn up and ad-hoc ministerial privileges doled out to unelected strongmen.
Bottom line: Its not democracy.
We have two choices in the near future.
1.) Escalate.
2.) Pull out.
Either way we lose. Thanks Mr. Bush for giving us two great choices.
> Would it really be fair to the Iraqis to postpone
> the January elections?
There is no chance that the US or anyone else is going to tell the Iraqis not to hold elections. Allawi knows that his continued power is absolutely dependent on his ability to hold elections on time.
He also knows that most Iraqis live in areas where the security situation permits voting. If a security disaster ensues and precincts containing 20% of population have to be repolled due to security incidents, then 80% of the Iraqi people will have had the chance to choose their own government and Allawi can rightly claim an historic achievement.
I also disagree with the posts that claim the polling data is out of touch with the Iraqi people. The same polls that show that Iraqis overwhelmingly want to choose their own government also show that over 80% do not believe that Americans will allow the Iraqis to choose their own government. Their views are entirely self consistent, they just don't take our goernment at its word. By enabling the Iraqis to choose their own leaders, the United States will go a tremendous distance towards easing their fears.
Remember Germany, after WWII? An utterly undemocratic country, downbeaten, occupied and with a legacy of a failed democraty (the so-called Republic of Weimar). It took four years to allow for German half-independent states again, with their own constitution, and free elections. And 45 years till occupation was formally ended!
Now let's compare with Iraq: Unlike the Germans, the Iraqis have no cultural ties or common traditions with the Americans/British occupying them. They have absolutely no democratic legacy, not even a failed one, that anyone can remember there. There is a strong resentment against the occupying forces, and any ideas stemming from them.
Unlike occupied Germany there is absolutely no safety guaranteed by the occcupying forces. The land has spun out of control, several cities are out of control, and military action is still taking place. No economic recovery is taking place, and doing business is now again nearly impossible for foreign investors, abductions of foreigners is commonplace.
There are no well-known political movements beyond ties to ethnic group and maybe clan. The interim government is resented by many Iraqis as a puppet of the occupying forces, and the only media trusted or at least respected by most Iraqis are American-critic Al-Dschasira. Media installed by the USA like Al-Hurra are perceived as propaganda instruments, and this is most likely a correct assumption.
So there are no political movements to have enough confidence in that they worth casting a vote for, a big problem about independent media and therefore freedom of speech, a population resenting the US and Western ideas, sometimes including democracy, and an unstable situation in general.
In a country where it is even problematic to get one's children into a school, and safely home and fed, is there really that much a chance for democracy? I guess not.
This is just an illusion made up to content American voters for this fall, not really help the Iraqis with anything.
democratically appointed Kofi Annan
democratically appointed? What the hell is that supposed to mean? An official is either elected, or appointed. And I sure as hell don't remember voting for (or against) Kofi.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
You do not understand the controlling dynamic here. It is all about who has power.
Kofi Annan believes that no wars should be fought by the United States without explicit UN approval and control, and therefore the US action in Iraq is "illegal". He said exactly that a few days ago, in a statement timed to cause maximum damage and embarassment to George Bush, shortly before he speaks at the UN, and in the midst of the election.
Of course he's going to assert that elections should not be held. If they are held, and successfully show that the Iraqi people support democracy, and can have a fair election, his premise that the USA's action was illegal becomes less supportable. So he will do everything he can to undermine the elections.
Kofi Annan would be happiest if the USA did a Vietnam-style humiliating withdrawal, and Iraq was plunged back into a cruel, totalitarian regime. Because that would prove that he, and his buddies in France, Germany, and Russia (although they are recanting now that they've had their 9/11), were right all along when they opposed the US action in Iraq.
If only 58% of respondents believe that democracy will work out in Iraq, that is not exactly wonderful.
No need to doubt the veracity of the poll. It's gloomy enough in itself.
And of course ALL of the Shi'ites will favor free and fair elections, since they will put them on top - which may cause the Kurds to secede and the Sunni to rebel, to simplify it horribly.
...this is no guarantee that the new representative govt. wouldn't go out and aquire WMD - indeed there
will be a strong incentive for them to do so as Israel, Pakistan and Iran either have or will have
nukes soon.
When that happens what will all the bloodshed
have been for? What will the GOP say to all the mothers of sons that died? In fact they probably won't have to say much at all - by that time the
'04 election will be old news.....Question, have
we bombed Baghdad, and lost the Gulf?
I think that Iraq will be more concerned with rebuilding their country and creating conventional forces to prevent a possible ongoing insurgency, coups, or even civil war. WMDs do not figure into this in any short-term window.
Of course, I am assuming that democracy will take root in Iraq. If Iraq falls into a dictatorship again, then power can be quickly consolidated, unreset quelled, the problems of the people ignored. Then Iraq could pursue WMDs, but so could a lot of other countries that want them.
Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
1. The UN is an institution based on democratic principles.
2. Kofi Annan is an appointed representative in this institution.
That's what the hell it's supposed to mean.
cL0h
Just like you don't for for the President of the USA, but for the members of the Electoral College.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
"The UN is an institution based on democratic principles"
Which explains why most of the countries in the UN are dictatorships and tyrants.
Well I disagree - theocracy or democracy the only way to avoid diplomacy by nuclear pressure (i.e. state 1:"do what we say - we have nukes" state 2:"Uh ok then") is to get 'em yourself....of course it is easy to do it on the cheap now-a-days.....
Allawi has proposed a perfectly reasonable plan by going forward with elections before complete stability is achieved.
Those places where stability is the worst have one thing in common - the local populace is not doing anything significant to actively combat, passively deny, rat the insurgents out to the Iraqi gov't, or otherwise discourage the behavior of the insurgents. So, they, rightly I think, should have less of a voice.
It's only when insurgent behavior is exported that you get an unfair situation - and judging from the fact that there are just a short list of 'hotspots', with thin tendrils snaking out from them, it's not exported that effectively.
The whelming majority of the country is perfectly suited to holding something resembling elections. Kurds are definitely all ready, much of the Southern Shia areas (anti-Iran parts) are quiet, Iraq's 'flyover' country probably doesn't have all that much invested in either way. So the only losers are really going to end up being a percentage of the Sunni areas, which is political karma.
Give the Iraqis true self-determination, and the US will definitely be disappointed on the outcome. It's a "can't please everyone" scenario.
> the local populace is not doing anything significant to actively combat, passively deny, rat the insurgents out to the Iraqi gov't, or otherwise discourage the behavior of the insurgents. So, they, rightly I think, should have less of a voice.
Suppose the US was invaded and occupied [by, er, martians] and a puppet government was installed. However, due to a resistence movement, they could not control the whole country. I suppose you would consider it fair for people in the resisting areas to have "less of a voice".
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
"the democratically appointed Kofi Annan"
"Democratically?"
Let's see... the People's Republic of China gets as many votes as the Federated States of Micronesia (namely, one), so it's not democratic in the popular sense (double entendre!)
"Democratic" can be more broadly defined as being selected by a mechanism through which the people at large have ultimate control. The US ambassador to the UN is selected by a democratically-elected president and approved by a democratically-elected Senate, so it can be said that the American people have ultimate (though indirect) control of the US vote in the UN, and from what I gather the situation in Ireland and the rest of the "Western" world is fairly similar. However, the people in many UN member states in Asia and Africa (to name a few) have no influence in their government or their government's choice of UN ambassadors short of armed rebellion, so Annan's position cannot be easily called "democratic" even in that broader definition.
The UN is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. Just because a slim minority in that oligarchy are chosen by a democratic process doesn't make the body as a whole democratic. In that sense, Annan and Allawi came into their jobs in exactly the same way, they were just chosen by different people (some of whom you apparently don't agree with).
Require member states to have a verifiably democratic government (much like what is required of US member states), and maybe toss in a "lower house" to the General Assembly that are elected by direct popular vote, and then we can start talking about "UN democracy."
"If you think I'm talking waffle then google 'canary wharf IRA' and compare that with last weekends round of talks where sworn enemies are now sitting around a table to talk."
Diplomacy only works when both sides are rational and the parties at the table actually care about what happens to the people they claim to represent.
The exact categorization of that election as "democratic" is debatable. It may be argued that you've democratically elected an aristocracy who then makes decisions on your behalf, the same as an imposed aristocracy would.
Besides, we don't have elections to vote for our electors to vote for the head of the UN. Or did I miss that election?
You say that very authoritatively, that poverty is the "biggest threat to 'the world'." I'm not sure how you can be so sure about it. Sounds like propaganda.
I mean, what does it mean to be a threat to 'the world'? Can you threaten the world?
It seems like poverty is maybe the biggest threat to poor people, if to anyone, and you might argue that angry poor people are the biggest threat to rich people. I'm not even sure those two statements are true or make sense, but they seem clearer to me than "poverty is the biggest threat to the world".
Essentially what you're saying here is that whenever a minority group has a grievance, if the government does not accommodate them, then blowing up civilians in downtown London is an understandable recourse. I understand that Catholics in Northern Ireland were terribly oppressed by the Protestants, and that the government was more willing to send troops to keep things the way they were, rather than to enforce civility between the two groups. But terrorism is still not a legitimate response to oppression.
I'm not exactly sure how people are defining "the biggest threat to the world." It seems rather ludicrous to me to define it either as terrorism or poverty. Both have been around forever, and neither is likely to go away in the forseeable future. Clearly neither can therefore be the factor that is increasing the threat "to the world," whatever that means.
P.S. I spent New Years 2003/2004 in Galway. Wonderful town. On New Years Day my mom and I drove around County Joyce (I believe) which was jaw-droppingly stunning, and up to Cong Abbey. I must say you live in a beautiful area of the world. All the best.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
The hostages were kept by the Iranians (still in power, building nukes these days) in exchange for promises of support by the Reagan campaign, negotiated by campaign director William Casey, who took over as CIA director after the election. The Iranians needed that support, as Carter cut off their American banking, necessary to resupply the American technology military they siezed. Once Reagan was in charge, the CIA started secretly, illegally, treasonously supplying the Iranians with parts, in exchange for money to fund their secret, illegal, gunrunning to massacre thousands of Central American people. That's why it was called "Iran/Contra", and it's documented all over the place, perhaps most compellingly as part of Veil, Bob Woodward's story of Casey's career.
--
make install -not war
The UN is an institution based on democratic principles.
No, it's not. It is, in fact, completely indifferent toward democratic principles. none of the representatives to the UN are elected by the people they represent. They are appointed, many by governments that we would not consider to be legitimate much less wholly democratic.
I write in my journal
Seriously. You hit the nail on the head, amigo. That's why hearing the "don't switch horses in midstream" and related rhetoric coming from the right wing sends me right up the wall...
don't mod this up (me too! me too!) I'm just venting.
it's not, poverty is
That's the most ignorant statement I've heard all day. That's like saying that darkness is a threat.
Poverty is nothing more or less than the relative condition caused by the absence of wealth. We draw an arbitrary line and say that people with less than X wealth are living in poverty while people with more than X wealth are not.
What you really mean here, what you're really talking about, is not poverty but rather inequity. You're one of those "let's make everyone equal" nutcases who thinks that communism is actually a pretty good idea that was never implemented correctly.
Attempts to understand the root causes of support for radicalism
Attempting to understand the root causes of terrorism does one thing and one thing only: it guarantees, with absolute certainty, that the next guy who has a beef is going to blow up a building to get attention.
Stop bombing people into the ground and it just might not happen to you.
"Just might not" isn't good enough. If we continue bombing everybody who supports terrorism back into the stone age, eventually folks will get the message that terrorism is a bad idea all around.
It is about putting peace before closing your eyes to world suffering.
La la, sunshine, lollypops and rainbows. What a fucking tool.
I write in my journal
Let's see... the People's Republic of China gets as many votes as the Federated States of Micronesia (namely, one), so it's not democratic in the popular sense (double entendre!)
Ahh yes, but if UN votes were based on the number of voters in each nation (i.e. 1 UN vote per N voters in the member nation), then Micronesia and China would be equal, or maybe even Micronesia is under represented. After all only then elite Communist members have any real authority in China.
Ans speaking of China... At what point does China cease being "communist" and become merely another totalitarian regime?
Since we are talking of democracy, the democratically appointed Kofi Annans opinion surely weighs more than that of the US installed Iyad Allawi.
You're trying to paint Annan as a neutral observer.
It just doesn't pass the laugh test. Annan's office directed hush letters to administrators in the Iraq Oil-For-Food program, from which billions of dollars have gone missing. Supervising the import/export of the goods in question was Cotecna, who employeed Annan's son first as an employee then as a consultant during the period immediately prior to their being awarded the UN contracts.
Annan has alot to lose if Bush is reelected. Bush is known to be displeased with the state of the UN while Kerry holds it up as a model of international cooperation and is likely not to press these issues in a new administration.
This is an astute political move by Annan, but let's not play games about his motivations.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Um...okay, I'll bite: if the US was invaded by someone (call it the Martians) who were trying to re-establish our lost Democratic Republic (for instance, as would happen, if, as the left would desire, they took away the 2nd amendment, made illegal aliens eligible to vote, and then China, Mexico, Canada and France had quietly invaded and outpopulated us in the red states so they vote the neocommunist party (aka Democrats) into unchecked power), then, um...yes. Absolutely.
I, for one, would welcome our Martian Liberators.
Why's that so hard to fathom?
It is, in fact, completely indifferent toward democratic principles.
The UNs greatest fault is that it cannot enforce democratic agendas. It's members voted not to invade Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction because a qualified majority did not believe Iraq was harbouring WMDs. The US and Britain acted unilaterally in invading to pursue their own agenda.
cL0h
The UN Charter of 1945 sets out the aims and powers of the organisation and as you'll be aware, the most important bodies, the Security Council and the General Assembly, work on the basis of consensus (the five permanent members of the Security Council retain a veto) and majority respectively.
In that regard, the UN operates, however unsatisfactorily, according to the general precepts of representative democracy. Apropos of the UN's aims, I'd draw your attention to Article 1, which provides that the organisation seeks:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
It is hard to contend that these provisions are anything but democratic in their explicit and underlying aims.
cL0h
But I never voted for Kofi Annan. As far as I'm aware, I never had the option of voting for any representitive in the UN. That means it's not even a representitive democracy. Which I don't always consider so-called "representitive democracies" true democracy. The U.S., for example, is not a democracy, and that's a good thing. It'd be even more of a mess if it were.
So I'm not sure why you responded this way to me the way you did. To the best I can understand, you seem to think that a government is a "democracy" if it "operates according to the general precepts of a democracy", even if it's not elected by the people?
And I guess the "general precepts of democracy" are such platitudes as "world peace" and "elimination of poverty" and "respect for human rights" and such. Is that how the argument goes? So a monarchy or oligarchy that supports "world peace" is also a democracy? It sounds like maybe you've been listening to politicians too long.
about the same time the US becomes a democracy
There is no doubt that those who attend the General Assembly or the Security Council may not have been sent there directly by an electorate.
However, in the case of democracies such as Ireland, the country is represented by an ambassador (Richard Ryan) and diplomatic staff, in our case from the Department of Foreign Affairs and usually with a military attaché.
Naturally, the remit of these representatives is defined by the stated policy goals of government and ultimately, all of these staff are answerable in all of their actions to a Minister (Senator)and an Oireachtas (Senate, whatever) whom are elected.
It sounds like maybe you've been listening to politicians too long.
Or maybe my views are represented to some extent at least in the transparent actions of my government. While I don't always agree with domestic decisions I feel my countries foreign policy is broadly in line with my views. We are a neutral country and not a member of NATO and do not support the big stick approach. I suppose because we do not have a big stick. But equating 'countering terrorism' and 'achieving peace' in my mind WILL NOT WORK.
Getting back to my original point. I believe that the pursuit of the tenets laid out by the UN charter and the pursuit of same by democratic means is the only real hope of achieving peace.
cL0h
Getting back to my original point. I believe that the pursuit of the tenets laid out by the UN charter and the pursuit of same by democratic means is the only real hope of achieving peace.
Again, I feel like we're talking past each other. Whether the UN has benevolent and good intentions is one argument. Whether it's a democracy is another. Whether it is correct in it's view of what is "good" is another, and whether it is effective in it's pursuit of "good" is yet another.
That you believe the UN has good intentions simply does not make it a democracy. If the people from each country were allowed to elect their representitives, then it would be a "representitive democracy", which is arguably not a democracy. However, there is no guarentee that representation is elected, so it's not a representitive democracy either. Can we agree on that, at least? That was the gist of my original posting to this thread, but I'm not sure your responses have addressed that.
As for the rest, if you want my view/opinion, I see the operation/running of the entire world as just a tad too complicated to say, "Hey, let's have no wars, and everyone can be equal, and no one will be poor." Politicians get elected by telling you that it's that simple- a full-on world democracy with no poverty, no wars, and no oppression. Everything will be "good". However, not even good is so simple as that.
And conveniently ignored his answer. la la la... everything's happy in republican-land...
>>Considering that you're so belligerent on the issue
Um, you started with him, and keep it up, and you're calling *him* belligerent? Phhbbbttt.
>>If you keep repeating your dogma, I'll keep asking for proof.
You're defending the right-wing... you have nothing to talk about when it comes to dogma or proof.
>>If you continue to not give proof, I'll assume you're lying, just as you did in your initial post about the article.
Ignoring someone doesn't make you right. If you want a second grade recess brawl, go somewhere else. I know you think you're smart, but you're just being a smart-ass.
Phyruxus
I modded that loony flamebait and troll... but /. undid my moderation when I posted an anonymous comment.
You're totally right of course... and you could point a rightwinger's eyeballs at the naked Sun, they'd tell you it was dark if they thought it would help their party line.
I'm so bummed. I'm just posting this because it's the only thing I can really add... I just don't have the energy to pound his empty, pointy little head in today. :-/
He's really crazy tho :) Best wishes, Phy
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
The facts are against the right wing, so just blabber until you piss off the opposition! WHee!!
How about this: When bush says that Saddam sought "uranium in Nigeria", or that "Saddam and Al-Quaeda were working together" or that "Iraq was a threat to the US"... you understand that, right? Even though it's all total bullshit? Of course. STFU.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Many people of the Middle East are used to regimes that rule their people with iron fists using death and terror to control. People "stay inline" out of fear of reprisal rather than genuine support. So, freedom is a stranger to many of those people.
Consider women who are in abusive relationships. Often, women in those kinds of relationships come from homes where abuse was common. Further, even when some of these poor women manage to get out of abusive relationships, they frequently enter other similar abusive relationships. The cycle goes on and on. Anyway, when women who are used to abuse enter relationships where there is no abuse, it sometimes frightens them. They do not know what to expect. Abuse is familiar to them; it's what they know. Breaking the psychological grip of abuse is very, very difficult even when the abuse is over. Freedom leaves these women with insecure feelings of not knowing what to expect. Remember, this scenario is not true for all women in abusive relationships. Likewise, I do not go as far to say that this situation happens most of the time (though it wouldn't surprise me).
You see, the people of the Middle East are used to tyranny. The thought of a government where they get to participate may be frightening. I don't know, of course; I'm not there. But being that as it may, the fact that respondents are favorable to having elections is a good thing. Unlike others in the Middle East - say the terrorists who are trying to dismantle any hope of freedom for the people of Iraq - activists for freedom do not threaten to harm, kill, behead, cut of limbs, etc., to extort a response. People who live in regions under the control of terrorists may not respond so favorably to the same poll. This would not be because they have any love for the terrorists who control the region but rather out of simple fear of what might happen if they respond honestly.
So why did I bother bringing up the analogy of abused women? Simple. Democracy is not something that is going to happen overnight. Freedom scares a lot of these people in a way (speculation). Being that such a high percentage of the respondents (who I believe responded honestly) want elections is an indication that Iraqi people want more for their country than what the terrorists have in store. It means they have the courage to break free of the chain of violence that has dominated their lives for so long. I am sure that they may be apprehensive, and may not be so quick to launch a massive "weeding out" of the terrorists among them since the terrorists still maintain a bit of a psychological grip. I believe the Iraqi people *do* want more. I believe the elections must continue as planned. I know, though, that the terrorists may try to disrupt the elections and even go so far as to murder their own people at the polls. A terrorist will go through such lengths to maintain control. A man who wants to maintain control over a woman may even go as far to kill her to get his way. But, the poll shows that there is hope for them. The government of Iraq should keep that hope alive with their people.
Get some.
US is a democracy. It's a representational democracy (a republic), which is a subclass of democracy. The other subclass is the direct democracy (which is mostly a historical curiosity nowadays).
To the best I can understand, you seem to think that a government is a "democracy" if it "operates according to the general precepts of a democracy", even if it's not elected by the people?
That's because it's called the United Nations, you great oaf! Not United People, not United Citizens, not United Humans, but United Nations. So of course the nations vote there, not individual citizens.
--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
I don't know if this is what you meant to imply, but a "republic" isn't quite the same as a "representational democracy", and the US is a bit more complex than either of these labels. At the very least, it's a constitutional federal republic made of semi-sovereign states which are each represtational democracies. Though, the exact form of government for each state is left largely to the state (doesn't necessarily need to be a "democracy"), so long as some basic rights (those guaranteed by the constitution) are maintained to the citizens of each state. -Or something like that. Government is a complicated thing. Did you know you can spend a lifetime studying it?
which is a subclass of democracy. The other subclass is the direct democracy (which is mostly a historical curiosity nowadays).
Sure, according to your definition, what some teacher told you or what was in some book you've read. Maybe the encyclopedia? That's nice. I mean, when "democracy" no longer means, "ruled by people" and just means "a form of government, either representitive democracy or direct democracy". And "representitive democracy" means that you somehow, directly or indirectly, however constrained, get to vote for the people who then rule you.
Of course, the terminology hasn't always been so cut and dry. Some people have termed the American system a "natural aristocracy" or "elected oligarchy" or other such things. But let's just ignore intelligent debate, right? I mean, politicians and public school teachers preach the religion of "democracy", so that, necessarily, is what the United States is, right?
That's because it's called the United Nations, you great oaf!
Ah, well, you make a good point. I must be a "great oaf", so therefore I'm wrong. Did you take debate class in high school? I'm not sure I could have structured such a tremendously sound argument as "you great oaf!"
So, let me restate my point, since repetition instead of refutation seems to be the mode of argumentation today. I won't get as advanced as name-calling, but I'll repeat for you:
An oligarchy that gets together and votes is not a democracy. Neither the supposition of "having ideals" nor the fact of "voting", within an oligarchy, makes it a democracy. Even allowing outside people to speak during the proceedings does not make it a democracy, since kings and tyrants may hold audiences.
Even if we suppose that a "representitive democracy" is a true democracy, it requires that the power still be maintained by the people. It requires that the system maintain representitives, elected by those being represented, that actually represent the people they represent.
I know, that last sentence sounds silly. Still, my point is, having someone labelled as "my representitive" does not a "representitive democracy" make. To take the extreme case, if the US had a king which appointed a council, one lord for each territory, and named each lord a "representitive", this would not be a democracy. So things are quite a bit more complicated that you seem to be making it.
Not United People, not United Citizens, not United Humans, but United Nations. So of course the nations vote there, not individual citizens.
Your point that the UN is a collection of nations and not of the people, if you take that position, it goes further to say this is not a democracy. A democracy is inherently "of people". So, according to this new way of thinking about it, we can more certainly rule out the possibility of the UN being a "democracy".
Now that I think of it, the UN isn't even a sovereign government, so it is not a democracy or an oligarchy- it's merely a council. It's an organization. It's about as much a "democracy" as my mother's book club, had her book club soldiers. And far more money, I suppose, too. Thanks for calling my attention to this.
Iraq election going to by pass the sunni area. "I think that anybody that thinks that you can hold elections in the Sunni Triangle by the end of January is really smoking something," military historian Frank Fukuyama said. http://www.ladybird.oxfordhost.co.uk/b2evolution/b logs/
You're calling Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams rational. ??
cL0h
I know you're trying to be funny but come on.
Can you threaten the world ?
Yes I can. "Damn you world! I'm going to kill you." You can say all of these things. You can argue what you want but once in a while take your fingers out of your ears and stop shouting.
cL0h
Essentially that's not what I'm saying. I never said terrorism was a legitimate recourse.
Let's not get tongue tied here. I know terrorism, drugs, communism, poverty whatever are all abstract nouns. Maybe you cannot call poverty a threat but you cannot wage war on terror.
My point was simple: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. It doesn't work.
cL0h
The UN is not a democracy OK. HAppy now :)
ninetimes I really don't have the time to continue this and I'm sorry if I get testy about it but you seem to be playing devils advocate. I'd love to sit down over a beer and discuss these things. Maybe I can't change the world I live in but I can change how I see it. We do have a choice
Peace.
cL0h
So I do think it's worth being clear what you're talking about when you say "threaten the world". Threatening the Earth? Do you think poverty is going to crack the planet or send us reeling into the sun? Do you mean threatening to one world organization or another, a country, the current social order, or what?
When Bush says terrorism is the greatest threat to the world, I don't think it makes a lot of sense, but I think I know what he means. When he says world, read: social order, where people have nice civilized wars, where people line up to shoot each other. read: the current political and social structure around the world, where countries "play by the rules". read: the US. Americans won't feel safe and invincible. I think he's saying that what most countries have to fear for their national security (in terms of military action) isn't real invasion from another country so much as militant crackpots with bombs strapped to their chests.
I think, at least I think I know what he's getting at. Agree or not. But what does "poverty" threaten? Civilization as we know it? Civilization as we know it is founded on poverty. Taking away poverty, that's a threat to civilization as we know it. (I'm not saying it wouldn't be better, but it wouldn't be civilization as we know it.)
Whenever people start talking about being anti-war or anti-poverty, or anything like that, I always think, "How nice for you. Way to take such a strong, thoughtful, independant stand. You've really added to the social discourse."</sarcasm> And then it ends up reminding me of:
Civilization as we know it is founded on poverty.
Taking away poverty, that's a threat to civilization as we know it. (I'm not saying it wouldn't be better, but it wouldn't be civilization as we know it.
You are very different person from me. I feel like I'm talking to an alien.
cL0h
What society, existant today, what full-blown society's power-structure isn't based on inequality of the people within it? Poor/rich, oppressor/oppressed. Even within families (not full-blown societies) there is often a power-structure. I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it is.
What society, existant today, what full-blown society's power-structure isn't based on inequality
Read it again. You make no distinction between the society and the societies power struggle. Why not ??
Power struggles do not supercede trust, respect and reciprocation. If there is a power struggle between siblings or between parents for the affection of a child without these things then it is a family in name only and will collapse as soon as is logistically possible. Communities are based on the same principles I help you sow your fields and later we harvest and you pay me or reciprocate in some way. Larger communities have appropriate checks and balances to enforce this but of course survivalism creeps in. Survivalism has been exceeded by the group ethos but remains nonetheless.
Of course survivalism has it's advantages to a degree. For example the space race in the sixties/seventies provided advances in technology and design. The ultimate advantages of achieving the goal however were overshadowed by the need to beat the other guy. I concede there is inequality in the world but it is not 'necessary' as you say nor is it the basis of civilisation. You can view it as such. It's a point of view. If you want to feel superior it is because you have an inferiority complex the same way if you go out on Saturday night and want to get into a fight, you will probably find one.
I don't know whether you presume I am a socialist, you wish to show disdain for socialism or what? Economic scarcity theory is continued despite the fact there is no scarcity because of this power struggle, because the people at the top want to stay on top ala Milosovic, Mugabe, Hussein, Chevron, BP. Yes this is the status quo but this is also unenlightened. That's why we're discussing it because we know it is but we know it's not ideal.
So what are we going to do about it?? If you wish my ideal political leanings I'd prefer a benevolent dictator. The 'if I ruled the world' idea. I'm damn sure I'd do a better job. That's why I can't wait til the machines take over. Imagine a world run according to pure logic. Of course we'd need some kind of test bed or simulator first. Hmmmmm!!! OK I'm rambling now.
Hey don't worry about the family nine-times. You didn't pick 'em. Just have faith in yourself and try to lead by example. I promise you it works.
Later
cL0h
cL0h