Quote:
Originally Posted by shek
A vote does not a Western liberal democracy make. They voted for religious parties and these religious parties have now divided up the spoils as they skim off the top from their respective ministries. If you want to make an argument that they have pure democracy where there is the tyranny of the majority that will create civil war, then I'll agree there.
Secondly, if it is so peaceful in southern Iraq, why have the Brits gone from not wearing full kit to wearing full kit? Why is there soft ethnic cleansing going on? It is because it is not peaceful.
|
The vote means that 70% of the population approve of democracy, and the percentage of votes in Iraq is about 40% higher that that of the U.S. That would tell me that the Iraqis are more enthusiastic about the new system than we are of our old one. As far as tyranny of the majority goes; you're right. It's called the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system is a bad form of government, but the Iraqis chose it: not us. The Iraqis are doing the soft ethnic cleansing, and it is illegal. I would submit that they need a different PM, but that doesn’t mean that it has been a “quagmire”; it’s actually been an amazing success.
If I said it's peaceful, than that was the wrong word. It is much more quiet that central Iraq, and the British troops have done a remarkable job pacifying it. Now, granted, there has been a
small resurgence of attacks, but that doesn't mean that the British have been defeated. The British are slowly withdrawing (the won't be totally gone until '08), and handing it over to the Iraqi army. That points to a success. It shows that the Iraqi army can take charge, and will. And as I said before; the small body count is very definitive. Aside from all this, there have been many areas of success in Iraq, why are you so quick to slant it? And why are you so quick to call it a defeat. Wishful thinking maybe?
Forgive any typos. They're frequent in my posts.