No country is perfect, i realize that; this is tongue-in-cheek (to some extent). i am not in a mood to get into anymore arguments today so anyone who is offended with this, please accept my apologies in advance :flower1:
~ ~ ~
Now that war is finally upon us, we must all hope or (if we share our leaders’ piety) pray that, within a matter of days, the thing is done with, the Iraqi people will be free of their oppressor and able to enjoy the benefits of American-style democracy. Here is a brief reprise of some of the changes they can expect if the US decides to give Iraq a facsimile of its own highly regarded system.
At present, according to the official website of the Iraqi National Assembly (“a major organ for the expression of democracy”) the 250 members are elected by blocs of 50,000 voters throughout the country. This suggests the outline principle is the same as in the US. However, the American constitution demands that the 600,000 inhabitants of its own capital city should not be allowed to take part in this process. The reasons are so obvious that no one can remember what they are, but most of those affected are poor and black, anyway. To ensure true devotion to US principles, the same will have to apply in Iraq; doubtless the Americans will break the news to the people of Baghdad tactfully.
In Iraq’s last presidential election, Saddam Hussein received 100% of the votes, a fact we know because officials said so. Instead, the Iraqis can expect a choice between two different American electoral models, either (a) the one employed in Florida in 2000, designed to ensure that the candidate with the most support loses, or (b) the modern version, as applied in more advanced states, where people vote on touch-screen computers. No one has yet got 100% of the votes by this method but Republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska did get 83%. We know this because the company that built the machines - which he part-owns - said so.
Under various decrees of the revolutionary command council, capital punishment can be handed out cruelly and whimsically in Iraq for a wide variety of offences. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. This is reported only by a few outside human rights bodies. This would cease under an American-installed system. Instead, executions would be largely confined to black murderers, most of whom will probably be guilty, accused of murdering whites and too poor to afford a decent lawyer. This will be reported only by a few outside human-rights bodies.
Under decree 59 of 1994, Iraqis can lose their right hand for theft of more than 5,000 dinars and their left foot for a second offence. This will presumably be replaced by the three-strikes law, ratified this month by the supreme court, under which Leandro Andrade has been jailed for 50 years for stealing nine videos and Gary Ewing got 25 years to life for the theft of three golf clubs.
Any Iraqi journalist thought likely to ask Saddam Hussein a difficult question is now subject to the dictates of paragraph 3. The American way (as seen during the presidential press conference two weeks ago) provides for such people to be stuck at the back of the room and simply not called.
Saddam has been universally seen firing his gun indiscriminately and menacingly. Under the second amendment, this right would be extended to everyone.
Saddam has conducted unnecessary and aggressive foreign wars to distract his benighted people from domestic economic collapse. Such behaviour would be unthinkable under American democracy.
Under Saddam, prisoners are held secretly and without trial, and tortured to extract information. Ditto.
The Iraqi system is largely dynastic and a leader like Saddam can pave the way for his son to attain wealth and power without regard to merit. Same again.
Saddam “electronically bugged” UN weapons inspectors, President Bush said in his speech on Monday night. The US has not yet tried to refute the Observer story that it bugged private meetings of other security council members. It’s probably too busy to dignify it with an answer.
Saddam has also threatened his neighbours. A well-placed source in Chile reports that Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, informed the Chilean foreign minister that, if they didn’t do as they were told in the security council, their free trade treaty would not be ratified and loans would mysteriously cease. One small example.
The National Assembly’s system of passing legislation has proved inadequate. Things are different here. When a Georgia congress man slipped in an exemption to organic food labelling rules into a recent bill to protect a firm that gave him a $4,000 campaign donation, it was noticed and criticised. True, the bill was already law before this happened, because no one in Congress had bothered to read it. But the US will ensure that the new legislature cannot be bought secretly for long. At least not that cheaply.
There will be no setting fire to oil wells. We need that stuff, dammit.
It would be impossible for a war to be conducted solely because one domineering leader forced a cowed and compliant parliament into agreement.
The new Iraq will be nothing like that. It could only happen in Britain.
But that is wrong because anything remotely based on the pre-bush American style democracy would be against the ideal and aims of what Bush and Co. strive for.
A prime example is SA. Do you think they want to replace the people who do as they are told and their repressive policies for a better, a more democratic, people-inclined governing body when what the majority of people wish for may be contrary to what Bush and Co want?
Bush's behaviour towards France Germany and pretty much the rest of the world in the build up to Iraq only confirmed what so many already knew, Bush stands for democracy as much as Saddam does.
No one should be in any doubt to he what Amreeki Democracy is .It is very subjective and interchangeable term when it comes to greater certain interests.
I agree that the notion that America's justice system is more opressive than Iraq's is quite funny. I wonder how many citizens from other oppressive countries are waiting for their Iraqi greencards?
As you say, no country is perfect, but I challenge anyone to name a country that provides its citizens more economic opportunities, more civil liberties and is more ethnically and religiously diverse. That's what I thought.
The funnier thing is that most muslims who left their home countries to live in Canada today only do so because it was easier to get into than the US. No matter how many of you object, and how loudly you do, no one believes you. It's Canada after all for God's sake. Name one "famous" Canadian who didn't end up moving to the US (and Dudley Do-Right doesn't count). Even the great one lives in California.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
The funnier thing is that most muslims who left their home countries to live in Canada today only do so because it was easier to get into than the US.
[/QUOTE]
Stu, Is this a reference to myself? IF so, as a general FYI i lived in California for a year and a half (i passed grade 7 and half of grade 8 in Bert M. Lynn); the sole reason we migrated to Canada was because of the numerous earthquakes and steadily increasing crime rate. We had an uncle who lived in a very quiet part of a very small Canadian city, so we moved there. Yes, there are good things about the US - civil liberties are one although i would be less enthusiastic to discuss that since, under the numerous "Homeland Defense" departments that are mushrooming, those are steadily eroding.
Rhia, You state that Bush stands for democracy as much as Saddam does. i could not agree more. We have all been witness to how Bush used such undemocratic techniques to coerce and bully other members of the Security Council (remember his not-so veiled threats to Chile and Mexico?). Democracy my foot. i will love to see how many Kurds and Shi'ites are actually included in the new Iraqi government, and how long General Tommy Franks decides to stay put in Baghdad to run the country.
Rhia: Where your logic and argument totally falls apart is when you say: “Bush's behaviour towards France Germany and pretty much the rest of the world in the build up to Iraq only confirmed what so many already knew, Bush stands for democracy as much as Saddam does.”
For your logic and argument to have any merit, there would need to be a relationship between the US and France, Germany and pretty much the rest of the world that is governed by or is intended to be governed by or should be governed by democratic principles. Pray tell, what is it? Certainly not the UN relationship as the UN was established and exists as a decidedly undemocratic decision making forum.
The US stand in favor of the principle of democratic institutions relates solely to the internal governance of individual countries. It does not extend to governance of international relations between and among sovereign nations. Until and unless there is ever a single world government to which each country gives up its own sovereignty, democracy doesn’t even come into play. Bush’s behaviour (which you find objectionable) towards France, Germany, et al. has absolutely nothing to do with standing for or against democracy.
The long and short of it is, Bush’s behaviour COULD NOT confirm that which you think you know because what you think you know is entirely unrelated to the behaviour. Got it?
>>The long and short of it is, Bush’s behaviour COULD NOT confirm that which you think you know because what you think you know is entirely unrelated to the behaviour. Got it?<<
Huh ? You state in your post that The US stand in favor of the principle of democratic institutions relates solely to the internal governance of individual countries. It does not extend to governance of international relations between and among sovereign nations. So, basically, that first part of your sentence signifies that the UN's power only runs as far as the US government allows it to? That, if the US government wants to negate the concepts of the UN Charter, it is fully within their jurisdiction to do so - because this is a matter of "internal governance"?
um why does this sound like the very same argument, i am certain, that dictators such as Hussein must have utilized - 'i am above and beyond the law'. If you don't want the UN, stay out of it and withdraw your membership. Quite simple. But, if you are a ratified member - you are a ratified member and subject to its principles and protocols just the same as anyone else.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*>>The long and short of it is, Bush’s behaviour COULD NOT confirm that which you think you know because what you think you know is entirely unrelated to the behaviour. Got it?<<
Huh ? You state in your post that The US stand in favor of the principle of democratic institutions relates solely to the internal governance of individual countries. It does not extend to governance of international relations between and among sovereign nations. So, basically, that first part of your sentence signifies that the UN's power only runs as far as the US government allows it to? That, if the US government wants to negate the concepts of the UN Charter, it is fully within their jurisdiction to do so - because this is a matter of "internal governance"?
um why does this sound like the very same argument, i am certain, that dictators such as Hussein must have utilized - 'i am above and beyond the law'. If you don't want the UN, stay out of it and withdraw your membership. Quite simple. But, if you are a ratified member - you are a ratified member and subject to its principles and protocols just the same as anyone else.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia: Please don't tell me you think the UN is supposed to be a democratic institution. As I stated, it is decidedly undemocratic. Only a 15 member security council can enact a binding resolution and 5 different countries have a veto privilege. You think that's democratic?
The UN's power runs only so far as the contract between its members says it goes. I somehow get the sense that you think the US has violated a principle or protocol of the UN. You're entitled to your opinion but so what. Others may share your opinion but so what. If you or others believe that is the case all you need to do is follow the principles and protocols of the UN and get the Security Council to adopt a Resolution confirming this and then get the Security Council to enforce the Resolution. Unless you get such a resolution passed, all you have are opinions which are meaningless. And if you don't like this decision making process, it is you who should urge your government to stay out of it and withdraw your membership.
Aside from the above, I don't think you understood my last post. Rhia said that (1) Bush's behaviour toward France, Germany et al confirmed that (2) Bush stands for democracy like Saddam does. That is not logically consistent as an argument unless number 1 has a reasonable and rational relationship to how one stands for democracy. I repeat, democratic principles do NOT extend to governance of international relations between and among sovereign nations.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
The US stand in favor of the principle of democratic institutions relates solely to the internal governance of individual countries. It does not extend to governance of international relations between and among sovereign nations. Until and unless there is ever a single world government to which each country gives up its own sovereignty, democracy doesn’t even come into play. Bush’s behaviour (which you find objectionable) towards France, Germany, et al. has absolutely nothing to do with standing for or against democracy.
The long and short of it is, Bush’s behaviour COULD NOT confirm that which you think you know because what you think you know is entirely unrelated to the behaviour. Got it?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I repeat, democratic principles do NOT extend to governance of international relations between and among sovereign nations.
[/QUOTE]
O veerun, kiyoN tap chaR gayee?
You are absolutely right there. These so-called democratic principles stop where the nose ends. Why don't they it extend and apply regardless?
Okay now that I agree with you, care to explain upon what principles are you (US) removing Saddam? On what principles can you even think of removing the Iranian Government, the Sauds, or any other Tom Dick and Harry if not for and of "democracy"(as farcical and shambolic as it is with unelected Mr Bush as president)? Indeed how can you justify any of the meddling if "the governance of international relations between and among sovereign nations" is NOT based upon democratic principles or in the hope of establishing democratic ideal, as you say?
Because it sure isn't based upon forged and plaigarised documents or upon high level intelligence documents which at best show the non-existent link to terrorism. It definitely isn't based on WMDs either.
Upon which principles is the US so desperate to act to bomb Iraq just because it couldn't face upto a resolution veto? Democracy? A Democratic way? No, you're right, it's not. It is just the kind of thing Saddam would do.
RHIA asks: “Okay now that I agree with you, care to explain upon what principles are you (US) removing Saddam?”
I believe, my government believes and most Americans believe that Saddam Hussein and his loyalist cadre armed with WMD will one day use them directly or indirectly to kill Americans, Israelis and/or other friends of America. We believe that the only way to eliminate this threat is to do what we are doing. And as a people, we hope and pray that we will have to kill as few Iraqi people as possible to accomplish this and bear witness to as few returning American body bags as possible.
I understand that you don’t think we have proven our case to you or some others. But, frankly, we don’t have to do this. The US government is charged with protecting the American people and American interests. We don’t need or want a majority of France, Germany and Russia to decide when we are at risk and what we can do to eliminate the risk.
RHIA asks: “On what principles can you even think of removing the Iranian Government, the Sauds, or any other Tom Dick and Harry if not for and of "democracy"(as farcical and shambolic as it is with unelected Mr Bush as president)?”
I don’t think we as a country are thinking of “removing the Iranian Government, the Sauds, or any other Tom Dick and Harry” to impose democracy or for any other reason. I don’t think it is appropriate for the US to use military force to accomplish the sole objective of changing the form of another country’s government. If that were the basis for attacking Iraq, I would be opposed. That changing the form of government will be a by-product of the military action is terrific for the Iraqi people.
RHIA asks: “Indeed how can you justify any of the meddling if "the governance of international relations between and among sovereign nations" is NOT based upon democratic principles or in the hope of establishing democratic ideal, as you say?”
The “meddling” you speak of can probably be justified in many cases on one of three things: 1. An express invitation or request for assistance from one country to another country; 2. Contractual relationships as for instance from treaties, loans, UN Charter, etc. ; and/or 3. Concepts of self-defense. As you can see, none of those things rely upon a majority vote of the countries of the world to act.
Iraq is 63% Shia Muslim, and these people have never held power in Iraq ever since it became independent in 1932. If Iraq is given true democracy then these people should get their rightful chance to rule over Iraq...but I won't hold my breath. The American's and their two allies are scared to hell that the Shia Muslims take control over Iraq...
Exactly, Malik :k: Shia Muslims will never be allowed to form the majority of a government in a post-Hussein era. That is about as likely as the US permitting Iraqi Kurds to establish a wholly independent Kurdistan.
Does it matter what the US will "permit"? Whatever form of government arises from Iraq will be whatever the people, the culture and the region will permit, not the US.
In a secret referendum, the people of Iraq have elected General Tommy Franks with over whelming majority. At last results, he got all but two votes. Saddam Hussain is presently investigating which of his two sons did not vote against the General. We expect an execution any minute now.
General Franks, has thanked the Iraqi people for this huge support and has promised them that he will lead the country to greatness and beyond, fully in line with the wishes of Iraqi people. As a token gesture, he has returned his US passport for an Iraqi passport, and changed his name to Talha Farooq. :k:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by myvoice: *
....
I understand that you don’t think we have proven our case to you or some others. But, frankly, we don’t have to do this. The US government is charged with protecting the American people and **American interests.* We don’t need or want a majority of France, Germany and Russia to decide when we are at risk and what we can do to eliminate the risk.
.....
[/QUOTE]
Imagine, every country in the world picking this up and attack on the "possible" future terrorist/enemies, whata peacful world would that be.
Anyway, the "bolded" highlight from your comments says it all.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Does it matter what the US will "permit"? Whatever form of government arises from Iraq will be whatever the people, the culture and the region will permit, not the US.
[/QUOTE]
We hope for everyone and the US' sake this is the case. For now, we'll wait and see.
myvoice, you articulate and sum your point of view up very well. I wish I could do so too. But I still believe your perspective is only half right and therefore all wrong. I would have justified my statement but I don't have to. :)
My tummy hurts…