American-style Democracy

[D_Raay]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/13/iraq.main/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- With the country's parliamentary elections slated for Thursday and early voting already under way, a truck carrying what are believed to be fake ballots was detained in the Iraqi border province of Wasit, the U.S. military said Tuesday.

U.S. investigators were being sent to examine the ballots in Wasit, located on the Iranian border southeast of Baghdad.

The truck's driver was Iranian, as was the truck's license plate, said an Iraqi Interior Ministry source. Authorities are investigating reports that other vehicles with possible fake ballots have been trying to cross the border into Iraq.

And while this is going on, they are burying a candidate that was killed the same day.

How is it possible to have elections in a country where the candidates are walking ducks?

[ASsman]

Mmmm, like fat-free fat!

[STANKY808]

That truck was owned by Diebold.

[valvano]

They were just left over ballots from dead people in Detroit and Chicago..........that would be Democracy Democrat Style!!

:D

[sam i am]

[QUOTE=D_RaayHow is it possible to have elections in a country where the candidates are walking ducks?[/QUOTE]

Freedom and voting are enticing allures. Power is alluring. Politicians will rise to fill a need for politicians.

Candidates knew, long before they ran for office, that they could potentially be dead. This kind of crap used to happen in the USA a long ways back (although Kennedy was assasinated in 1963 and Reagan was shot in 1981, wasn't he?).

Democracy is messy and brutal and captivating and empowering all at once : don't ya love it?!

:)

[D_Raay]

I hardly think you can compare our climate during any time period to Iraq's.

[sam i am]

I hardly think you can compare our climate during any time period to Iraq's.

Why not?

Have you ever read about the Revolutionary Wars? Or even seen the Patriot (which, I understand is NOT history, but does have some illustrative moments in it)?

Americans were killing each other, and the Brits (and their proxies, the Hessians) off left and right during the fight for independence. There were roadside "bombings" (although they were more ambushes then), politicians were assassinated, thousands of people died, there were factions across the 13 colonies that were both for and against British rule, etc., et al.

It was actually VERY much like modern day Iraq in many respects.

[Funkaloyd]

Are you seriously comparing the Iraqi resistance to American revolutionaries?

[sam i am]

Are you seriously comparing the Iraqi resistance to American revolutionaries?

No.

You misinterpreted my point.

I was comparing CLIMATES, not ideologies or outcomes : per D_Raay's query.

[Monsieur Decuts]

I hardly think you can compare our climate during any time period to Iraq's.

that's a pretty overstated comment.

i seem to remember the 1700-1800s being pretty damn bloody as idealists fought for what they wanted the US to be.

[ASsman]

Wow it's like listening to Ann Coulter speaking.... *sticks gun in mouth*

[Documad]

American-style democracy is probably not possible in countries that don't resemble the USA in certain respects. While I think that we have the best damn system ever, it wouldn't necessarily work elsewhere.

If your "country" was a product of some foreign powers drawing lines at the end of some sort of struggle they had amongst themselves and you find yourself cobbled together with people who have a completely different national identity, the usual result is disorder, violence, civil war, and a bunch of tiny countries. I certainly hope that Iraq breaks that pattern in the long run.

I'm trying to think of a case where it worked. I'm not very familiar with the southern hemisphere, but I can't think of any in the north.

[D_Raay]

that's a pretty overstated comment.

i seem to remember the 1700-1800s being pretty damn bloody as idealists fought for what they wanted the US to be.
How so? I wasn't comparing volumes of blood. It is not a logical or accurate analogy that sam made, and I was pointing that out.

[D_Raay]

Why not?

Have you ever read about the Revolutionary Wars? Or even seen the Patriot (which, I understand is NOT history, but does have some illustrative moments in it)?

Americans were killing each other, and the Brits (and their proxies, the Hessians) off left and right during the fight for independence. There were roadside "bombings" (although they were more ambushes then), politicians were assassinated, thousands of people died, there were factions across the 13 colonies that were both for and against British rule, etc., et al.

It was actually VERY much like modern day Iraq in many respects.
Sigh... I was hoping you wouldn't force me to repudiate further. Aren't you a history major?

There is NO legitimate comparison between the American Revolution and the war in Iraq today. Here's why:

1. During the American Revolution, the American colonies were rebelling against their own established government, not a foreign power. In Iraq, the insurgents/terrorists are trying to destabilize American and Iraqi efforts to establish a democratic government.
2. The Brits didn't launch their southern campaign until almost four years into the war, and did it in hopes they could pacify the South, then use it as a base of operations against the colonial army. Overall, though, the Brits were fighting against individual colonies that were cooperating via the Continental Congress and local elected officials, not a preexisting government with a standing army and alleged storehouses of weapons. In Iraq, US forces first toppled the existing government, then appointed an interim government made up of Iraqis, and is now acting to insure, as much as possible, a trouble-free democratic election that will increase Iraq's stability and independence.
3. In Iraq, the US invaded a nation to topple a ruthless dictator. The plan has always been to build a democratic nation, not to annex Iraq and make it a US colony (at least that's what they would have us believe). This is the exact opposite of what the British were trying to accomplish in America over 200 years ago if you believe the Administration.
4. The southern campaign was launched in the hopes of gaining some kind of long-term victory against the Americans who, despite losing more than they had won in terms of battles on the field, had managed to frustrate British efforts to bring the American colonies back into the British fold.
5. In Iraq, insurgent/terrorist forces cannot in their wildest dreams hope to field an army capable of taking on even the newly trained Iraqi forces, much less the overwhelmingly powerful American military. During the American Revolution, colonial forces were able to field an army from almost the first major campaign.
6. Though, the Colonial Army in the South, commanded by Nathanael Greene, lost most engagements with the British, ultimately, the Brits' need to live off the land as they chased Nathanael Greene's army across the South alienated many who had originally supported their mother country and made their attempts to pacify the South almost hopeless.
7. During the American Revolution, the British were incredibly frustrated with their inability to pacify the colonies. In Iraq, at least 75% of that nation is pacified and ready to assume self-rule, while the insurgent/terrorist strongholds are mainly concentrated in two areas and are slowly being squeezed by American and Iraqi forces.
8. Americans in the mid 1700s already enjoyed the highest average standard of living of any nation in the world. Americans were partly motivated, then, to fight for what they saw to be a direct threat to that standard of living. In Iraq, what are the insurgents/terrorists fighting to keep? Dictatorial rule? The right to force women out of the workplace and into homes where their best hope is to become the property of a reasonable husband?
9. In Iraq, the insurgents/terrorists are willing to saw off the heads of innocent people in public and blow up or shoot up children in public places rather than see Iraq become a democracy. In America, well, it was a different story.

And I could go on like that for another couple of pages but, ultimately, the bottom line is that comparing the resistance of colonials during the American Revolution to insurgents/terrorists in Iraq today is, to say the least, stretching it a bit. Any comparisons offered are, at best, likely to be superficial. At worst... Well, just try imagining comparing George Washington to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Really, this is one of those situations where common sense dictates the philosophy of "don't go there!" Besides, I thought we were trying to stick to the Viet Nam comparison.

[Ali]

How is it possible to have elections in a country where the candidates are walking ducks?Iraq's election commission says 6,655 candidates, 307 parties and 19 coalitions have registered for Thursday's ballot. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4530226.stm)No shortage of ducks, then.

[Ali]

Democracy is messy and brutal and captivating and empowering all at once : don't ya love it?!Not at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm) price. The campaign group Iraq Body Count has been recording the number of civilians reported to have been killed during the Iraq war and subsequent military presence.

On 1 December 2005, it put the total number of civilian dead at between 25,685 and 29,201 and the number of police dead at 1,640.

On 12 December, US President George W Bush said about 30,000 Iraqis had been killed since the war began.

His spokesman later said the figure was not an official one and was based on "public estimates cited by media reports" - a method similar to that used by Iraq Body Count.

Nevertheless, Iraq Body Count's methods and its ability to compile accurate statistics have been questioned by critics, with some arguing that it has greatly underestimated the number of casualties.

One study, published by the Lancet medical journal in October 2004, suggested that poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" had led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq.

The US and UK governments have both said the chaotic situation in Iraq makes it impossible to gather such information accurately. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[ASsman]

It would come to this eventually....Atleast I get to hear arguments debated time and time...and time again.

I mean by the simple fact that it's been debated multiple times, proved in many ways, and many times over..

[sam i am]

I'm trying to think of a case where it worked. I'm not very familiar with the southern hemisphere, but I can't think of any in the north.

Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland (half French and half German), France after the Romans left, Germany, Italy, Spain (Aragon & Castille), the USSR for about 40 years, etc., et al.

Countries grow and change and mutate and cobble together and split apart and reassemble throughout history. It's worked in a plethora of cases.

[sam i am]

1. During the American Revolution, the American colonies were rebelling against their own established government, not a foreign power. In Iraq, the insurgents/terrorists are trying to destabilize American and Iraqi efforts to establish a democratic government.

False. The colonies were rebelling against a FOREIGN (read British, with their German, Hessian, lackeys) government. No taxation without representation ring a bell?

Otherwise, my point was to show that the Iraqis (those who are on the Americans' side) are fighting, in large part, to gain the kind of freedoms that we Americans already enjoy, as you so eloquently stated. I was NOT comparing the resistance to the American revolutionaries.

[sam i am]

It would come to this eventually....Atleast I get to hear arguments debated time and time...and time again.

I mean by the simple fact that it's been debated multiple times, proved in many ways, and many times over..

Then why don't you just refrain from reading it or commenting on it if you're tired of it?

No one's FORCING you to read or participate, are they? :D