They shoot children, don't they?

[wade]

First, it would take a heck of alot more than we are spending now to bankrupt the US. Especially since government spending is just a small part of the GDP of the United States. In Germany their government spends nearly 50% of the nations GDP and its just starting to break. I think we will be able to handle atleast that much before bankrupting ourselves. and I dont see us handling that anytime soon. Especially not with conservatives in control. Now if we could only get rid of some entitlements.

Second, if we are playing so stupid right now, how would you do it?

I've answered that before - I'd have used neutron bombs to kill Saddam and most of the Baath party during one of their congresses, along with heavy conventional (and maybe a few more neutron bombs) to eliminate the Rep. Gaurd. Then I'd have let the Iraqi people take over the country, decide their own fates, and offered them assistance but not forced it down their throats.

Wade.

 

[NightTrain]

I've answered that before - I'd have used neutron bombs to kill Saddam and most of the Baath party during one of their congresses, along with heavy conventional (and maybe a few more neutron bombs) to eliminate the Rep. Gaurd. Then I'd have let the Iraqi people take over the country, decide their own fates, and offered them assistance but not forced it down their throats.

Wade.

So...

You would have used a few WMDs to indiscriminately kill untold numbers of civilians? How many children would die? How many innocent civilians? Your death toll is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

Murderer!

 

[wade]

You obviously don't understand the technology. Neutron bombs have a very limited area of effect, and very little radioactive persistance, and do minimal collateral damage. Given that the Baath party meetings were done in a hall well away from the reach of the general public, and that neutron bombs can be scaled down to effect an area as small as about one large city block, there would not have been massive, or even significant, civilian casualties. What such a weapon does do is ensure that those in the target zone are killed, with almost 100% certainty.

I would expect the only civilian casualties would have been the staffs of the Baath party members who had the misfortune to be present or immeadiately nearby. There would have been extremely few children killed - less than have died as a result of the occupation.

Wade.

 

[NightTrain]

You obviously don't understand the technology. Neutron bombs have a very limited area of effect, and very little radioactive persistance, and do minimal collateral damage. Given that the Baath party meetings were done in a hall well away from the reach of the general public, and that neutron bombs can be scaled down to effect an area as small as about one large city block, there would not have been massive, or even significant, civilian casualties. What such a weapon does do is ensure that those in the target zone are killed, with almost 100% certainty.

I would expect the only civilian casualties would have been the staffs of the Baath party members who had the misfortune to be present or immeadiately nearby. There would have been extremely few children killed - less than have died as a result of the occupation.

Wade.

I understand much more than you evidently think I do.

Your estimates of a tactical neutron bomb kill zone and affects are completely fucked.

Espousing several NewBomb deliveries is tantamount to Nuke delivery as far as instant casualties. You are no true Liberal, you're a hardcore Commie that hates Bush because he's against Commies.

No Liberal would rubber stamp an N bomb.

Thanks for playing.

 

[wade]

The kill zone of a tactical neutron bomb is less than 4 small city blocks, or two large ones. Saddams Baath Party congress was easily more than a half mile from any large population centers (on the other side of the river), pleanty far enough away that very few innocents would be killed.

I am not a communist at all. Communism denies human nature, and is thus doomed to be corrupted by it.

I believe in regulated capitalism. The market structure should be used to allocate goods and services, but it should be regulated to prevent abuses such as monopolies and other forms of collusion.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

The kill zone of a tactical neutron bomb is less than 4 small city blocks, or two large ones. Saddams Baath Party congress was easily more than a half mile from any large population centers (on the other side of the river), pleanty far enough away that very few innocents would be killed.

Taking out the Iraqi Congress? For what? To do Saddam a favour?

I am not a communist at all. Communism denies human nature, and is thus doomed to be corrupted by it.

You condemn communist now. You kept the flame lit for communist only a few days ago.

We have no idea what might have happend if the USA had chosen communism back in the 1780's instead of a democratic republic for its form of government. The Soviet Union fell from communism to dictatorship because of all the stresses to the union not faced by the USA. Remember, after the communists took power the western powers sent armies to try to dispel the new government. Under constant threat from outside powers and in the face of horrible economic conditions, it was easy for a dicator to seize power.

True communism IS based on dictatorship. You hold out for utopia, as if the West and some economic setbacks were the only reason it failed in the USSR. And Cuba, North Vietnam, Cambodia, etc...

I believe in regulated capitalism. The market structure should be used to allocate goods and services, but it should be regulated to prevent abuses such as monopolies and other forms of collusion.

Everything I've read from you so far tells me you support socalism, not regulated capitalism.

In so many words, you believe in socialized healthcare. You said the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. You said the environment is at risk from the greedy rich. You naturally despise Bush.

You'd have bush take out 48 city blocks with three 'Neutron bombs' instead of limited JDAM strikes against what was later to be faulty intelligence on Saddam's location.

So the world community thinks you are mad.

The allies start pulling out in disgust.

But you took out the Iraqi Congress!

And killed over a million Iraqis.

And still no conventional attack.

And saddam is loving every second.



But wade, I know you hate Bush. For other reasons you've posted before.

If Bush had lobbed a few nukes into Iraq based on what was indeed information of questionable accuracy, hardly anyone, least of all you, would be going on about how great this idea was.

 

[Zhukov]

I'd have used neutron bombs to kill Saddam and most of the Baath party during one of their congresses, along with heavy conventional (and maybe a few more neutron bombs) to eliminate the Rep. Gaurd. Then I'd have let the Iraqi people take over the country, decide their own fates, and offered them assistance but not forced it down their throats

That would have almost certainly led to a full scale three-way civil war that would have cost the lives of millions without our physical prescence there to stop it. The ultimate outcome of which would have been a client state of the Iranian theocracy.

 

[wade]

Comrade,

Where do you get this shit?

You say true communism is based on dictatorship. This is pure crap. You have obviously never read Marx. True communism is based upon rule of the proletariat, through their elected representatives. Soviet and Chineese communism have effectively cut the proletariat out of any role in the power of the state - totally contrary to the basis of communism. Neither of these nations is really communist. Communism is an ideal which is not practical because people have a desire to own goods and property and the state is a poor distributor of goods and services. It is far too subject to corruption at almost every level. It denies human nature.

Soviet and Chinese (and other places) lack(ed) any kind of assurance of some standards of basic rights of the citizen or limitations to the power of the state. The obvious result is totalitarianism. Remove the bill of rights and other assurances of individual rights and limitations on the state from the American constitution (as Bush seems to want to do) and it too will very quickly go down the road to dictatorship.

-----------

Taking out Saddam and the Baath Party congress would have cut the head off the Saddam regime.

You'd have bush take out 48 city blocks with three 'Neutron bombs' instead of limited JDAM strikes against what was later to be faulty intelligence on Saddam's location.

Where do you come up with 48 city blocks? Neutron bombs can be made in almost any size. The mini-neutron bomb (using a red mercury trigger) is the size of a baseball and has an area of effect which can be just about as small as you want. From the inventor of he neutron bomb:

The material (red mercury) means a neutron bomb can be built "the size of baseball" but able to kill everyone within several square blocks.
http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm

{btw: you should read this whole article - very sobering stuff}​

The area of effect can be reduced by reducing the amount of fusion fuel in the bomb, so it could be tailor made to minimize the loss of innocent life.

The odds are very high that Saddam would attend a major meeting of the Baath party, especially if the USA were carefully avoiding any threatening political jestures. But to ensure his demise, several of his palaces would also probably have to be hit. Even if he did survive, his power would be ruined.

I have been a proponent of using the neutron bomb since well before 9/11. It is the least expensive way to deal with corrupt regimes - both in monetary terms and in terms of the loss of innocent life. It would also make absolutely clear that we are not fucking around anymore!

JDAM's are another option, but the number required would be huge and this tends to make the chances of sucess small. It is much easier to have a few subs launch some neutron bomb armed cruise missiles in secret than to pull off a massive JDAM attack. You have to strike quickly and simultanously, or the chances that your targets will not be killed and the mission will fail becomes almost a certainty. Carefully planed neutron bomb attacks can achieve this - JDAM attacks are very unlikely to do so.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

A little technical detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

Notice that the article states there remains a lethal dose 24 to 48 hours after detonation.

 

[wade]

A little technical detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

Notice that the article states there remains a lethal dose 24 to 48 hours after detonation.

That essay does not consider the mini-neutron bomb - it assumes a plutonium core. Yes there is a delay before the area can be safely entered, as neutron radiation will cause gamma rays to be emmitted from some metals for up to 48 hours after the blast.

But the size of effect figures at that site are all based upon the original neutron bombs. It does not even mention the mini-neutron bomb with the red mercury trigger. These can be made tiny as there is no critical mass requirement. Also the fallout from a standard neutron bomb from the fission core, is mostly absent from the mini version.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

That essay does not consider the mini-neutron bomb - it assumes a plutonium core. Yes there is a delay before the area can be safely entered, as neutron radiation will cause gamma rays to be emmitted from some metals for up to 48 hours after the blast.

But the size of effect figures at that site are all based upon the original neutron bombs. It does not even mention the mini-neutron bomb with the red mercury trigger. These can be made tiny as there is no critical mass requirement. Also the fallout from a standard neutron bomb from the fission core, is mostly absent from the mini version.

Wade.

No argument from me as far as teh technical details go; just wanted folks to know what you were talking about.

 

[Comrade]

Comrade,

Where do you get this shit?

You say true communism is based on dictatorship. This is pure crap. You have obviously never read Marx.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/m2frame.htm?massparty.htm

Marx and Engels spelt out a second correction to the Manifesto, after the experience of the Paris Commune. In a preface to the re-publication of the Manifesto in 1872, they quote from a speech made by Marx to the first international Marxist organisation, the International Working Men’s Association:

"The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for their own purposes."

True communism is based upon rule of the proletariat, through their elected representatives.

Similar to the rule of the Ba'ath party members who elected their representatives, while from high, high above in the party Saddam ruled at the top of their pyramid.

Soviet and Chineese communism have effectively cut the proletariat out of any role in the power of the state - totally contrary to the basis of communism.

Agreed. Communism is a fantasy where you establish one party in complete control of all property and expect some kind of just democracy to come about just like *that*.

Neither of these nations is really communist. Communism is an ideal which is not practical because people have a desire to own goods and property and the state is a poor distributor of goods and services. It is far too subject to corruption at almost every level. It denies human nature.

I think we're in agreement then. It's certainly an idea each set out to achieve and did not survive beyond it's inception.

Soviet and Chinese (and other places) lack(ed) any kind of assurance of some standards of basic rights of the citizen or limitations to the power of the state. The obvious result is totalitarianism. Remove the bill of rights and other assurances of individual rights and limitations on the state from the American constitution (as Bush seems to want to do) and it too will very quickly go down the road to dictatorship.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/m2frame.htm?massparty.htm

"the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

And when that goes you can use the bill of rights as toiletnaya bumaga.

Taking out Saddam and the Baath Party congress would have cut the head off the Saddam regime.

With neutron bombs again?

Where do you come up with 48 city blocks?

3 known unsuccessfull strike on Saddam. Instead of JDAM's you elected to use neutron bombs with a four block radius. 4 sqaured = 16 blocks kill zone. Times three =48

Neutron bombs can be made in almost any size. The mini-neutron bomb (using a red mercury trigger) is the size of a baseball and has an area of effect which can be just about as small as you want. From the inventor of he neutron bomb:

The evil scientist in me agrees!

{btw: you should read this whole article - very sobering stuff}​

The area of effect can be reduced by reducing the amount of fusion fuel in the bomb, so it could be tailor made to minimize the loss of innocent life.

Cooll link, I'll read it.

The odds are very high that Saddam would attend a major meeting of the Baath party, especially if the USA were carefully avoiding any threatening political jestures. But to ensure his demise, several of his palaces would also probably have to be hit. Even if he did survive, his power would be ruined.

When, where, at what cost and with what result? I see Qusay in charge and Uday with a greater role. And the rule of succession, although not clear, is certain.

I have been a proponent of using the neutron bomb since well before 9/11. It is the least expensive way to deal with corrupt regimes - both in monetary terms and in terms of the loss of innocent life. It would also make absolutely clear that we are not fucking around anymore!

Now that a bold statement my friend. I think it's far too extreme for too little return on investment. Just using a nuke at that point would virtually guarantee Kerry his spot in 2005. With Qusay in charge and the world mightiliy pissed off at the US.

JDAM's are another option, but the number required would be huge and this tends to make the chances of sucess small. It is much easier to have a few subs launch some neutron bomb armed cruise missiles in secret than to pull off a massive JDAM attack. You have to strike quickly and simultanously, or the chances that your targets will not be killed and the mission will fail becomes almost a certainty. Carefully planed neutron bomb attacks can achieve this - JDAM attacks are very unlikely to do so.

I'm all for the option to have this, but if the intelligence is specific to a building of interest, like I imagine it would generally be, a good spread of JDAMs will bring the roof down, without enraging and panicking world and domestic opinion.

 

[Avatar4321]

Its rather sad how some people still believe in the communist lie despite the fact that Marx really had no idea how economics works and has been the direct result in the termination of millions of lives. Communism has never ever had a system that works. because its very presmises are faulty. They dont take into account the evil nature of man like Democratic governments and capitalist idealogies do. When you refuse to admit man can be evil scum and fail to provide checks and balances against that then you are doomed for totalitarian regimes.

 

[wade]

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/m2frame.htm?massparty.htm

Similar to the rule of the Ba'ath party members who elected their representatives, while from high, high above in the party Saddam ruled at the top of their pyramid.

But the same thing can and has happened in "Democracies". For democracy or any other political system to hold to its ideals it requires that those ideals be laid down and that the people understand and defend them against all threats - internal and external. Any failure to protect the principals upon which the government is founded, especially from the government itself, will almost invariably lead to dictatorship - a lesson we seem to need a refesher course in here in the USA.

Agreed. Communism is a fantasy where you establish one party in complete control of all property and expect some kind of just democracy to come about just like *that*.

I agree. But that is an implementational issue really. Had communism in the Soviet Union (for instance) laid out firm limitations for the power of the state and rights for the individual, and had the people insisted those rules be followed, it might have worked.

I personally believe that communism as an overall system might be workable if properly implimented. However I also think that this system would probably not lead to most people being happy. It is focused on the idea of individual sacrifice for the good of the many, and while that is acceptable when things are bad, it is overly restrictive to the human spirit when things are good.

With neutron bombs again?

3 known unsuccessfull strike on Saddam. Instead of JDAM's you elected to use neutron bombs with a four block radius. 4 sqaured = 16 blocks kill zone. Times three =48

Wrong - 4 block total area. Neutron bombs can be made that have a 200 meter radius of effect - and it is quite possible they can be made to have an even smaller radius of effect. The article I referenced refers to a baseball sized bomb with about a 200 meter radius, but by reducing the hydrogen content of the fusion mass, the radius should be able to be reduced to almost any size desired.

When, where, at what cost and with what result? I see Qusay in charge and Uday with a greater role. And the rule of succession, although not clear, is certain.

It is very likely that at least one of the spawn would have perished as well, and probably both if the palaces were hit as well. But even if they did surivive, with the removal of the Baath party and the Republican gaurd, they'd have been running for their lives - not trying to step into Saddams shoes.

Now that a bold statement my friend. I think it's far too extreme for too little return on investment. Just using a nuke at that point would virtually guarantee Kerry his spot in 2005. With Qusay in charge and the world mightiliy pissed off at the US.

I got news for you Comrade - THE "WORLD" IS MIGHTLY PISSED OFF AT THE US!

Qusay would not be in charge. As for gauranteeing that Kerry would win - I don't think so. I think Americans would support such a strike given the anger level immeadiately after 911, especially if the collateral damage (civilian causualties) was very low.

Furthermore - there is no reason we would have had to admit we'd done it. The world might highly suspect this was the case, but we are not the only one's capable of such action. Actual neutron bomb attacks have never been carried out in the past, only the USA and the SU really have any experiance with these weapons at all. And they leave very little evidence of what actually happened - especially if red mercury triggers are used. We could just have said "Allah smote the evil" with a wink and a smirk and leave it at that.

It would be a big question mark as to who really did it. Certainly the Israelis, British, Russians, French, Germans, and Chineese have the capability. Hell, we could even setup Iran as the fall guy - blame it on them and turn the Arab world against their own! LOL

And another thing - this is not beyond the capacity of certain private parties in the USA. William Swanson (Raytheon) could probably pull this off all by himself if he were willing to risk the consequences should he get caught. The hardest part would be getting the mini-neutron bomb - but an enraged private citizen might not be quite so concerned with civilian casualties.

It is even possible for much less well positioned people to have done it. I think I could build a cruise missile with a limited range (lets say 200-300 miles) for under $50,000 (including 2 tests). GPS makes it very easy to do the guidence system. Before you laugh, read this:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-3-2003-41208.asp

YOU can build your own cruise missile! And all the parts are available off the shelf!

This opens the door to all kinds of cover stories and misdirections.

I'm all for the option to have this, but if the intelligence is specific to a building of interest, like I imagine it would generally be, a good spread of JDAMs will bring the roof down, without enraging and panicking world and domestic opinion.

Conventional weapons do not have the sudden kill power of a neutron bomb. Neutron bombs would kill everyone within the target structure, and below it down to the 3rd basement. To achieve the same kill % on a 200 x 200 meter area using 2000 lbs JDAM's would require a minimum of 300 JDAM's dropped in 2-3 salvos. While this might be possible, pulling something off using B2 bombers, it would require our entire B2 force (21 - see http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm), and it is questionable they could pull off the harmony of attack needed to prevent Saddams having a good chance of being wisked away after the first bomb hit. And their would be no capacity remaining for the palaces or the Republican Gaurd. Furthermore, there is a good chance they'd be detected heading into Iraq - while the Iraqi's could not pinpoint them, suspicious radar readings would likely end up with Saddam in a bunker, and possibly the Republican Gaurd depolying into a state of "readiness" making its total destruction much less likely.

If we were to have done something like this it would have needed to be achieve total surprise and near total destruction of the target objectives, and conventional bombs just do not pull off that trick (at least not until we have a lot more B1 bombers than we do now).

Finally, there would have been no denying we'd done it.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Might of worked .. shoulda... woulda ..... couldaa..

Communism is good; communism is bad.

Wade, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Please find some personal inner unity, for you own sake.

You can use my mantra, it's "Bush/Cheney '04"

 

[wade]

Might of worked .. shoulda... woulda ..... couldaa..

Communism is good; communism is bad.

Wade, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Please find some personal inner unity, for you own sake.

You can use my mantra, it's "Bush/Cheney '04"

Learn to read RWA!

I never once said that Communism is a good thing. I said it was pontentially a viable political system that does not necessarily have to degenerate into dictatorship. There is a huge difference.

I think that Communism makes sense as a means of land reform in nations where dictatorships have created a class structure which requires it. However, I think this is just a stepping stone to democracy. Once land reform is solidly established, the advantages of the market system and private ownership would prevail, provided the state does not fall backwards into dictatorship.

Dictatorships transitioning to democracy that recognize existing ownership of resources and offer no redress for the sins of the past dictatorships leave the people subject to economic oppression by the same power-elite/ruling class that made up the dictatorship. This is clearly the case in many S. American nations which are badly in need of land reform. Communism is a means of instituting land reform in such situtations - the alternative is a blood bath where the existing ruling class is eliminated, and those that undertake such a course invariably create a new dictatorship.

Watch Vietnam - given its current course, it will probably be a democracy in another 10-20 years, maybe less.

Stop repeating that mantra - it is blocking your thought processess. Open your mind and think!

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Learn to read RWA!

I never once said that Communism is a good thing. I said it was pontentially a viable political system that does not necessarily have to degenerate into dictatorship. There is a huge difference.

I think that Communism makes sense as a means of land reform in nations where dictatorships have created a class structure which requires it. However, I think this is just a stepping stone to democracy. Once land reform is solidly established, the advantages of the market system and private ownership would prevail, provided the state does not fall backwards into dictatorship.

Dictatorships transitioning to democracy that recognize existing ownership of resources and offer no redress for the sins of the past dictatorships leave the people subject to economic oppression by the same power-elite/ruling class that made up the dictatorship. This is clearly the case in many S. American nations which are badly in need of land reform. Communism is a means of instituting land reform in such situtations - the alternative is a blood bath where the existing ruling class is eliminated, and those that undertake such a course invariably create a new dictatorship.

Watch Vietnam - given its current course, it will probably be a democracy in another 10-20 years, maybe less.

Stop repeating that mantra - it is blocking your thought processess. Open your mind and think!

Wade.

communism will never be anything other than tyranny. IT's the government taking all money and deciding who to give it to. You say it's a step from tryanny to democracy. That's bs. It's tyranny with a fresh coat of red paint and litany of unrealistic, individuality stopping plattitudes dressed up as wisdom, but even Maybelline wouldn't make that two bit whore of an ideology look attractive.

 

[wade]

communism will never be anything other than tyranny. IT's the government taking all money and deciding who to give it to. You say it's a step from tryanny to democracy. That's bs. It's tyranny with a fresh coat of red paint and litany of unrealistic, individuality stopping plattitudes dressed up as wisdom, but even Maybelline wouldn't make that two bit whore of an ideology look attractive.

By your logic democracy is the same. Look at Rome - it was a democracy for about 200 years, but then it degenerated into totalitarianism. Look at all the "democracies" that have failed over history.

Your understanding of what communism is is juvinile. You really should read Marx Comrade. You are looking at it through a tunnel focused on what happened in the Soviet Union - which was never actually Communist.

Look at how many "democracies" in the world today are little more than slave-labor states. What matters is the integrity of the political system and its defined ideals and goals and how well it lives up to them. Any political system is vulnerable to totalitarianism and tyrrani.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

By your logic democracy is the same. Look at Rome - it was a democracy for about 200 years, but then it degenerated into totalitarianism. Look at all the "democracies" that have failed over history.

Your understanding of what communism is is juvinile. You really should read Marx Comrade. You are looking at it through a tunnel focused on what happened in the Soviet Union - which was never actually Communist.

Look at how many "democracies" in the world today are little more than slave-labor states. What matters is the integrity of the political system and its defined ideals and goals and how well it lives up to them. Any political system is vulnerable to totalitarianism and tyrrani.

Wade.

Really the debate here is an economic one. socialism vs capitalism. Democracy and socialism are not incompatible, and for that matter, neither are tyranny and capitalism. What history has shown is that democracies which turn towards socialism and forget the values which made them great are the ones that fail.

You're the one with the juvenile understandings. I've read marx, his analysis of industrial culture is quite accurate, but his solution is, well, frankly, nonexistant. Anger and revolution solve nothing. What purports to be a government of the people winds up being the worst tyranny, a mere envy-based coups, emotionally satifying for the short term, yet crippling in the long. Thanks for your input, but you are wrong.

 

[wade]

Really the debate here is an economic one. socialism vs capitalism. Democracy and socialism are not incompatible, and for that matter, neither are tyranny and capitalism. What history has shown is that democracies which turn towards socialism and forget the values which made them great are the ones that fail.

You're the one with the juvenile understandings. I've read marx, his analysis of industrial culture is quite accurate, but his solution is, well, frankly, nonexistant. Anger and revolution solve nothing. What purports to be a government of the people winds up being the worst tyranny, a mere envy-based coups, emotionally satifying for the short term, yet crippling in the long. Thanks for your input, but you are wrong.

Your argument is flawed. You point at the US democracy as, pretty much, your sole example of a successful democracy. Look at how many have failed!

It was the unique circumstances of being on a realtively unihabited continent rich in resources and having a diverse ethinic population, that allowed the US democracy to establish itself and flourish. If the USA had been born in Europe, particularly in 1917 Russia, it would have failed too.

The problem with democracies in an established society are that they have no means of redressing past wrongs or redistibuting wealth and property. If they do incorporate the means to do this, they also incorporate the very seeds of their own devolution into dictatorship. It takes two steps to get from an entrenched dictatorship (for instance a monarchy) to democracy, the first step requires land reform and wealth redistribution, followed by a period of about a generation of social recovery. Only then will a nation be ready for democracy.

Just watch in Iraq - our attempt to force democracy on them is going to fail. The only way to avoid this would be to institute some kind of forced land and wealth redistribution upon them, followed by a generation of education for all - but that is not going to happen.

Wade.