Democracy is a historical process that needs to reach maturity over time. One cannot export democracy with guns. If you look at the history of all Democratic nations today, they all fought for it for decades. And it was the people who fought for it, not govt or institutions.

And if you look at history of non-democratic countries, they never had it, nor do they wish to. Almost all Muslim nations prefer non-democratic system.

US cant change the mindset of people. For democracy to suceed it has to be deep rooted in the society. People have to beleive in it, and clearly the number and facts states Muslim countries dont prefer democracy.

___________________
___________________

I tend to agree.

Japan and West Germany worked out pretty well.

It's about giving people a choice and a voice. I agree that it takes time. It's certainly not a perfect system, but I don't see how it is not the most desireable. Unless of course, you are in line for the throne.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Japan and West Germany worked out pretty well.

Completely true...

^^ yeah, but the difference being that west germany had a history of democracy before democracy was re-introduced...

the problem is if we accept that democracy can only come through maturity over time, wtf do we do with brutal dictatorships around the globe?

oh, sorry, we cant help/intervene becoz you havent reached the right point of governmental evolution? meh.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Japan and West Germany worked out pretty well.

I think those circumstances were just a little bit different.

And people wonder why there's no end in sight with Iraq--going to war with ideologies and installing those ideologies into countries that think otherwise is difficult, if not useless at all.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I think those circumstances were just a little bit different.

Both post-war forced transition of governments?

I think it's ironic how non-religious people generalize and bitch about how ALL religious people want to impose their views on them while they see no problem in going to war and imposing a system of goverment on some other nation. What's the fucking difference? One form of fascism stems from religious ideology while the other from political ideology, point being, they are both fascism. And anyone who thinks what is nowadays called "democracy" is freedom is truly delusional. There's nothing democratic about electing leaders who represent major coorperate interests and don't give a shit about the general population (except the richest 1-5 % ofcourse). This democratic crusade that my beloved nation's pursuing makes me sick to the core, along with the fascist hypocrisy of secular people (and religious people alike).

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Dec-05-2005 at 07:26

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Both post-war forced transition of governments?

With all due respect Neo, WHAT FUCKING WAR?!?! There is no war in Iraq. It's a fucking invasion and raping of a nation. I don't mean anything personal by it (especially since I think you're basically a good guy) but it really pisses me off when such serious matters are mischaracterized, something very prevelant in our culture so we "feel good" about what we're doing (and people only run into this problem when they identify or associate themselves with whatever power structure they live under, in this case our goverment).

P.S. I also just got done watching the new George Carlin HBO special and I think his anger and frustration rubbed off on me a little bit.

EDIT: On another note, that a very inappropriate comparison. Iraq is very different from Germany or Japan, and those were VERY different wars too.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Dec-05-2005 at 07:57

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Both post-war forced transition of governments?

Well, you have to consider that after the German Revolution of 1918 (which led to the creation of the Weimar Republic), Germany's National Assembly elected Friedrich Ebert as their first president. They didn't need an occupational force because the people themselves (via the workers and soldiers council's) pushed for revolution.

While they may not have been completely unified as a country, the German people were much better educated as a whole (in comparison to the Iraqi's.) Weimar was (quoting Wikipedia):

quote:

one of the great cultural sites of Europe, since it was the home to such luminaries as Bach, Goethe, Schiller, and Herder. It has been a site of pilgrimage for the German intelligentsia since Goethe first moved to Weimar in the late 18th century. The tombs of Goethe, Schiller, and Nietzsche may be found in the city, as may the archives of Goethe and Schiller. The period in German history from 1919-1933 is commonly referred to as the Weimar Republic, as the Republic's constitution was drafted here because the capital, Berlin, with its street rioting after the 1918 German Revolution, was considered too dangerous for the National Assembly to convene. Weimar was the center of the Bauhaus movement. The city houses art galleries, museums and the German national theatre.

Iraq's literacy rate is what, about 40 percent? It's comprised of Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Persians, Armenians, Turcoman's and Chaldeans. Each of Iraq's ethno-religious factions have been vying for control for how long now? (I don't know the full history I just know it's been a hell of a long time)

The political structure of Iraq is a non-cohesive, non-homogeneous combination of (from www.State.gov):

quote:

Al-Sadr Movement [Muqtada Al-Sadr]; Constitutional Monarchy Movement or CMM [Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein]; Da'wa Party [Ibrahim al-Ja’afari]; Independent Iraqi Alliance or IIA [Falah al-Naqib]; Iraqi Hizballah [Karim Mahud al-Muhammadawi]; Iraqi Independent Democrats or IID [Adnan Pachachi, Mahdi al-Hafiz]; Iraqi Islamic Party or IIP [Muhsin Abd al-Hamid, Hajim al-Hasani]; Iraqi National Accord or INA [Ayad Allawi]; Iraqi National Congress or INC [Ahmad Chalabi]; Iraqi National Unity Movement or INUM [Ahmad al-Kubaysi, chairman]; Jama'at al Fadilah or JAF [Ayatollah Muhammad 'Ali al-Yacoubi]; Kurdistan Democratic Party or KDP [Masud Barzani]; Muslim Ulama Council or MUC [Harith Sulayman al-Dari, secretary general]; Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or PUK [Jalal TalabaniI]

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that in relation to Iraq, Germany was amazingly unified, with an educated and (relatively) informed citizenry (edit: something that seems necessary for Democracy to function properly.)

I think that any country which is split into that many vehemently opposing factions (as Iraq is) will undoubtedly have an overwhelmingly difficult time achieving any sort of diplomatic cohesion. I think that cohesion is necessary for the basic foundations of democracy to adhere, and Iraq is void of it.

That's my humble opinion.

Last edited by Trancer-X on Dec-05-2005 at 09:07