Discussion in 'Politics' started by rtwngAvngr, Jan 8, 2006.
I remember fighting with some retarded lib on here about establishing democracy in iraq. He kept saying "who are we to do it. let them decide!" and I'd be like "That's what democracy is, the people deciding." and around and around we went. It was weird.
Democracy is a lot more than just the people voting in elections to elect a government. That's a mechanism of democracy, but it doesn't establish a democracy itself. Once that government is elected, it needs to take measures to assure that the voice of the people remains at the forefront of policy-making. That means either putting every policy issue to a public vote (something very difficult to do), or doing something like we have in America, where elected representatives are expected to unequivocally represent the will of their constituents in any and all policy decisions, independent of their own personal views on those issues. Further, the people need to not only be able to elect those representatives into office, but also have recourse to elect them out of office if they don't properly represent them. If that doesn't happen in Iraq, then Iraq won't have a democracy, no matter how many elections they held to create that government.
As for the original question of coerced freedom, freedom is very subjective. What we consider freedom might be considered stifling and repressive to another culture. Freedom is defined by a given society's beliefs and values, and if those beliefs and values don't coincide with ours (as is the case with the Islamic Middle East), then our idea of freedom won't be theirs, and what they consider freedom wouldn't sit well with us.
Let's remember, the Iraqis wrote this constitution, the Iraqis voted on it and the Iraqis approved it. The only coersion was that we coerced Saddam Hussein to take a 9 month vacation to Spiderholeland.
I agree. I think the coercion would come into play if we decide we don't like the government they put into place (like if what they elected becomes a theocracy), and try to force them to start again and keep doing it until they get it right ... according to our standards. I hope that's not what happens. But I'm sure there are plenty of neocons who would be in favor of that tactic. Let's just hope the more level heads on the right prevail.
Frankly, it's up to Iraq to get its government going. We have basically agreed to act as Iraq's military until they can get their army back up to speed, but politically speaking, Iraq's government is Iraq's business.
I call bullshit.
Yeah, I gotta agree with him on this one. If your idea of freedom is different from mine, then one of us is wrong.
I agree, the question then becomes, WHO is wrong, and WHO makes that call?
Yeah. Then we would enter a debate and determine who is wrong.
Separate names with a comma.