Iraq. Now what?

[PrinceThrakhath]

Delance, I read what you wrote but I do have to agree with Quarto, at least with most of his points.
This war was started to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to give the Iraqi people freedom and the possibility to chose their own government.
(please, if anyone wants to say now that it was about WMDs then sorry, but months before everything started it was already spoken out loud that it was mainly about a regime change)
Now they are free. I don't really understand now with what right anyone could force them to create a government that we think of as a good western-like democracy. It is their choice now. If they don't chose such a government but a not so democratic one then
1st it will still be much better than Saddam's regime
and
2nd with what right could we stop them from doing so?

 

[Delance]

Well, only in the fantastic land of the oversimplification.

Who’s “they”? The Iraqi People? I agree they should have a government that rule for the people. In, fact, that’s my entire point: only a representative democratic government can assure that goal.

But unlike you seem to beleive, there is no "they". There's no monolitic group of people that want the same thing. The people of Iraq is not formed of generic tanned people with moustaches that scream "saddam! saddam!" to CNN and think exactaly the same.

There are very different and antagonistic religious, ethic and cultural groups of Iraqis. If one group alone rises to power and decide to start suppressing liberties or even torturing and killing the others, it’s might end up just the same as before.

And while it can be the choice of the “majority” who might be in power, you can be sure it won’t be the choice of the minority that is going to suffer.

Iraqi Minority: "Oh yes, they are torturing me, but they wont the last elections so I shouldn't complain"

I don't think so.

It simply isn't right for one group to rise to power and oppress anyone that they don’t like. The risk that such thing might happen is basically the main reason why they didn’t want to remove Saddam before.

Again, it’s bad enough to think it’s a good idea to let some group form a totalitarian dictatorship in order to rule the rest of the country with an iron fist, but to call that “Democracy” is very wrong.

The only way to assure that the atrocities of the past totalitarian dictatorship won’t be repeated is to not allow another totalitarian dictatorship to take its place. It isn’t all that complex concept to grasp.

Besides, a lot of people on Iraq want the country to have a democracy where they can live their lives with freedom and prosperity. Should the Americans and British just ignore them and let whoever is more powerful to oppress them against their will? Just because they might be a minority (which we really don't know)?

Just to make things clear, I’m not saying they should have a government or values imposed on them. It’s just a matter of making sure that their government will be representative of all of the people of Iraq, and that it won’t have the power to commit the atrocities of the past regime.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by ChrisReid
The story behind our base on Cuba is one of the funniest things in international relations history ever.

And that's a history with lots of funny things. IIRC, Castro denounced the Guantanamo Treaty, and the US said "yeah, right".

 

[t.c.cgi]

Originally posted by Delance
Wow, did you even read what I wrote, at all?

Yes, I did. Let me pick up on your Hitler example. How'd that happen? Well it certainly wasn't democracy failing. Hitler spoke good. With the flick of a tounge he could envoke almost any emotion he wanted in the people. It's called Rhetoric. Unfortunatly some people take rhetoric for what it's worth, and Germany just happened to have a majority which like Hitler's promisses without asking how he'd acheive them. Democracy didn't fail, the MAJORITY got what they wanted. The PEOPLE failed, they didn't look beyond the glimering promises, nor did they show much of any real outrage when he made himself fuhrer. If the majority didn't like it, they should have started a revolution or civil war.

Consensual Government, personal freedoms and individual rights are not American ideals, but DEMOCRATIC IDEALS embraced by the Americans, as well as many other countries.

Hardly. Did you ever take a government class when you were in school, or at least look up the terms you debate? A democracy, in simplest terms is majority rule. There are two main ways, direct democracy (everyone has a say in everything), and representative democracy (everyone decides who has a say in everything). If the MAJORITY vote for someone who is racist, democracy hasn't failed, just the people.

Democracy is originally a western ideal, whether someone likes it or not, wheatear this is a politically correct historical fact or not.

Unfortunatly that couldn't be any more false. Democracy goes back a long time. It's pretty much agreed upon we got all our ideas (democracy, seperation of powers, etc) from ancient civilizations.

It is not, fortunately, restricted to the culture from which it originated. If it were, the Americans could never have embraced it.

This, suprisingly, is the first factual, truthful thing in your post.

A country can have a theocratic government, a fundamentalist regime, a totalitarian dictatorship or a medieval monarchy. I didn’t say they couldn’t. I didn’t even say they shouldn’t.

However, a lot of those start from either a coup, revolution, civil war, or some form of democracy, corrupt or otherwise. Remember, if the majority put it there, democracy never failed.

The self-evident truth I stated is that for a country to be a democracy is must be truly embrace the ideals of democracy. Democracy isn’t just the rule of the majority – such government is the dictatorship of the majority.

Democracy has always been majority rule, however.

It’s not about anyone’s personal view of democracy.

THAN STOP PUSHING YOUR OWN!!!

A country where the majority can choose to expropriate, expel or kill the minority is not a democracy. It’s not even a defendable position, that kind of atrocity is the very thing Democracy is supposed to prevent.

Hardly. Democracy didn't stop Japanese-American imprisonment in WW2, or the dropping of EITHER atomic bombs. FDR actualy served FOUR TERMS in office as well. Doest that make the USA a totalitarian dictatorship? According to YOUR definition, we are.

[/B]It’s also obvious that when someone puts “Democratic” in the name of a totalitarian dictatorship it does not magically change its nature. It doesn’t work that way.[/B]

No, but as I state, if the majority put it there...

Now before you call anyone else’s statement stupid (daft = stupid according to dictionary.com), I suggest you do some things:

1. Read what was actually said
2. Learn the basics about the subject being discussed. Read some Bobbio or Rousseau - don't worry, they aren't American authors
3. Try to at least counter some of the points, instead of generically saying “you are wrong because I want to”

In order to PREVENT me from calling your statements daft at all times, I suggest you finish high school.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
Democracy is not a totalitarian dictatorship of the majority. That we call a totalitarian dictatorship. A democracy is a government with limited power, tolerance and respect for minorities, where people will not be robbed of their property or killed arbitrarily by the government.

You're talking about something else here. The suffering of the minority doesn't stem from the majority electing the government it wants. The suffering of the minority stems from the failure of democracy in other areas - as you say, in a democracy, the government has limited power. It has to tolerate and respect the rights of the individuals, whoever they may be. In other words, in a democracy, it doesn't matter who is elected, because the system ensures they cannot abuse their power. And that being the case, why not allow [insert any extremist group here] to win the elections? The damage that disallowing them would do to the democratic system would certainly be greater than the damage than they could do if they were elected.

Let’s use your own example, inserting some names. Those leaders didn’t gain power via normal elections, but it's still a good example.

On the contrary, these are the stupidest examples you could possibly find. As you say, these leaders didn't gain power via normal elections. So how can they possibly be examples of democratic elections gone wrong? Furthermore, even in the case of Hitler (who is the closest to actually supporting your case, since he was elected in almost a democratic manner), the problem is not who was elected, but what he was allowed to do afterwards. In a proper democracy, Hitler would have been elected, would have served his term without abusing any minority, and in due time, would have been succeeded by another democratically elected leader.

Let's look at some different examples. Chile. A leader is elected. Somebody - not the people, obviously - decides that he's a danger to democracy. The military, led by Pinochet, seizes power. Democracy is thrown out the window, along with about three thousand lives.

Another example, one already mentioned here. Algeria. A political party wins the elections. Somebody - again, not the people - decides that they're a danger to democracy. The military seizes power, and civil war begins.

Another example. Turkey. They're notorious for this. In Turkey, the military has overthrown the government several times, to "save democracy". Did this ensure that the rights of the minorities were protected? Ask the Kurds. Hey, ask the conservative Muslims, too - why aren't Muslim women allowed to wear headscarves in public places? It's great that they're not being forced to wear them, but why can't they choose to wear them? So not only does the Kurdish minority suffer, but the Muslim majority does too. Now that's democracy.

There is a lot more such examples. On the other hand, there isn't even a single example of the opposite situation - of democracy getting stronger because the majority's choice was arbitrarily thrown away by someone.

 

[PrinceThrakhath]

Originally posted by Quarto
Furthermore, even in the case of Hitler (who is the closest to actually supporting your case, since he was elected in almost a democratic manner), the problem is not who was elected, but what he was allowed to do afterwards. In a proper democracy, Hitler would have been elected, would have served his term without abusing any minority, and in due time, would have been succeeded by another democratically elected leader.[/B]

Hitler was elected in a very democratic manner. Not once in the entire time of the 3rd Reich the Nazis acted even only once against the consitution. Hitler was elected by the majority. He changed the consitution and made himself the Führer with the majority of the parliament. The Nazis never did anything against the consitution, the people and the parliament voted for them. That's it. The Nazis gained their power in a perfectly democratic manner.


An talking about "Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority".. well.. sorry but.. that is EXACTLY what it is. THat is the basic idea behind that word. Basic democracy means just that what the majority wants to be done is to be done. That's it. Anything else, like protecting minorities and such that has been adapted later and is somewhat different in every democratic nation. That is by no means a must for having a democracy.

If you want a democratic government for Iraq and think we can put one there that will always do what's best for and is the will of the people then I think we should look at our own countries a bit. How many of the western "democracies" do really do what the people want? Blair of the UK joined the war while the majority of the UK people was against that. Same in several other countries.
That's just one basic example.. Germany joined the EURO zone although the majority of the people wanted to stay with the D-Mark. Well.. that's what our idea of democracy is. That's also not perfect, but nobody tells us what government we have to elect and what leaders are ok and which not.
That's the right of us, the western nations, and it should be the right of the Iraqi people as well. They might have a different idea about how they want their democracy to be.
The only thing we can do is make sure that the first elections down there are really free and then let the government do its work. And if that government should be attacked by the military or something and is asking the UN for help, then we can take actions to protect that elected government. But we have no right to tell them what this government has to do in its own country. They are elected, they have the right to do what they think is best.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
Yes, I did. Let me pick up on your Hitler example. How'd that happen? Well it certainly wasn't democracy failing. Hitler spoke good.

So by your definition, Nazi Germany was a democratic government? You seriously lack the knowledge of the basics of what a democratic government is.

Hardly. Did you ever take a government class when you were in school, or at least look up the terms you debate? A democracy, in simplest terms is majority rule. There are two main ways, direct democracy (everyone has a say in everything), and representative democracy (everyone decides who has a say in everything). If the MAJORITY vote for someone who is racist, democracy hasn't failed, just the people.

That's an oversimplification. The government in democracy must have LIMITED POWER. Every citizen has rights that must be protected by the government.

Unfortunatly that couldn't be any more false. Democracy goes back a long time. It's pretty much agreed upon we got all our ideas (democracy, seperation of powers, etc) from ancient civilizations.

Wow, it's amazing. For the second time in a row you failed to even comprehend what I wrote in the first message.

The origins of democracy are on ancient Greece. That has been my point since the first message. When I repeat it, you say it "couldn't be any more false" and repeated what I have just said. Try to read what you are replying to, it helps sometimes.

The Greeks are the origin of the ideals of Democracy, and also the western civilization. The Romans continued with those ideals, and brought them to Western Europe. That's the origin of the democratic values and ideals of the western civilizations. Go read some history books.

Democracy has always been majority rule, however.

Not, it hasn't. A democratic government must have limited power. Ideals like consensual government and personal freedom did exist back in ancient Greece.

Doest that make the USA a totalitarian dictatorship?

Of course not. Such attempts to put USA on the same moral level of totalitarian dictatorships are shallow and erroneous.

In order to PREVENT me from calling your statements daft at all times, I suggest you finish high school.

If you lack the culture to actually debate something, trolling isn't a good strategy.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto
You're talking about something else here. The suffering of the minority doesn't stem from the majority electing the government it wants. The suffering of the minority stems from the failure of democracy in other areas - as you say, in a democracy, the government has limited power. It has to tolerate and respect the rights of the individuals, whoever they may be.

Yes, that’s exactly what I was talking about.

In other words, in a democracy, it doesn't matter who is elected, because the system ensures they cannot abuse their power. And that being the case, why not allow [insert any extremist group here] to win the elections? The damage that disallowing them would do to the democratic system would certainly be greater than the damage than they could do if they were elected.

I think I didn’t express myself clearly before. It’s quite obvious we agree. I didn’t say the majority shouldn’t choose the government, or that certain groups should be prevented from reaching the government, but in fact that a democracy should be strong enough to survive that. It’s very easy to abuse your power and turn yourself into a dictator once you reach office via popular vote – you certainly know numerous examples of that.

A Democracy must be strong enough to survive whoever gets elected. Elections are not a carte blance, the government must still obeys well defined limitations to its power, otherwise it won’t be a democracy.

Furthermore, even in the case of Hitler (who is the closest to actually supporting your case, since he was elected in almost a democratic manner), the problem is not who was elected, but what he was allowed to do afterwards. In a proper democracy, Hitler would have been elected, would have served his term without abusing any minority, and in due time, would have been succeeded by another democratically elected leader.

Well, you answered your own question there. And yeah, you are right, and that was pretty much what I was trying to say. The problem is exactaly what people are allowed to do aftewards. The objective of a proper democracy is to now allow people like Hitler or Stalin to commit atrocities, even if they reach power by democratic means.

What I meant is that if Pol Pot or Stalin got elected democratically (which I know they didn't) with the intentions of committing the same atrocities, they should not be able to in a democratic government. A democracy should prevent such leaders from doing whatever they wanted, because they power would be limited, and not total.

I'm not saying they can't get elected, but that they can't have absolute power once they do.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by PrinceThrakhath
Hitler was elected in a very democratic manner. Not once in the entire time of the 3rd Reich the Nazis acted even only once against the consitution. Hitler was elected by the majority. He changed the consitution and made himself the Führer with the majority of the parliament. The Nazis never did anything against the consitution, the people and the parliament voted for them. That's it. The Nazis gained their power in a perfectly democratic manner.

And that makes Nazi Germany not a democracty, but a Totalitarian Dictatorship. They used terror to enforce it.

And it's a well known academic fact that two democracies never went in war with each other

An talking about "Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority".. well.. sorry but.. that is EXACTLY what it is. THat is the basic idea behind that word. Basic democracy means just that what the majority wants to be done is to be done. That's it.

No, it's not, and you are wrong. Go read some books about ancient greece.

Anything else, like protecting minorities and such that has been adapted later and is somewhat different in every democratic nation. That is by no means a must for having a democracy.

As stated before, ideals like consencual government, personal freedom and individual rights for citzens existed in ancient greek. There's vast historical evidence of this. Go read a book.

If you want a democratic government for Iraq and think we can put one there that will always do what's best for and is the will of the people then I think we should look at our own countries a bit.

That's not what I was saying at all. Go read back.

How many of the western "democracies" do really do what the people want?

Democracy is NOT just about doing what the people want. Make a poll:

Do you want to pay taxes?
Do you want to work?
Do you want the government to give you a Ferrari?
Do you want to be a TV Star?
Do you want your team to win the national championship?
Do you want to eat chocolate all day and don't get fat?

People want that, but the government can't give it to them. Government is not an instrument to magically give people what they want.

 

[PrinceThrakhath]

Originally posted by Delance
And that makes Nazi Germany not a democracty, but a Totalitarian Dictatorship. They used terror to enforce it.

I said they were elected totally legal. Nothing was enforced there. They may have enforced something later but no force was ever necessary for them to become the leading party in Germany. And transforming the German democracy into a one party dictatorship was also a democratic decision of the German parliament. The majority of the parties agreed with it.
I didn't say the 3rd Reich was a democracy I said they were elected - totally legal and democratic. What followed is something else, but the beginning wasn't forced at all.

No, it's not, and you are wrong. Go read some books about ancient greece.

Now could you please come with some arguments here. This "I am right and you are dumb" starts to become boring.

As stated before, ideals like consencual government, personal freedom and individual rights for citzens existed in ancient greek. There's vast historical evidence of this. Go read a book.

I know that such rights and freedoms existed in very old civilizations. So? That doesn't prove that a democracy has to include those rights by difinition. That just proves that such rights often exist and existed already very long ago in democracies.
One example. In the first decades of the USA slavery was perfectly legal in the southern states. But still the USA were accepted as a democratic country. Do you say your country wasn't democratic until after the civil war? I think some historians might disagree there. Yet slavery is taking away most of the rights a democracy should offer every citizen. I see a slight conflict here. And what about the times before women were allowed to elect? I think refusing them to elect is taking away a very important individual right. But were all countries no democracies before women were allowed to elect there? You see, it is true that a democracy usually offeres certain rights to its people, but those rights changed over history and were not always the same. What may be absolutely necessary for a working democracy in our heads today was not at all selfunderstanding some centuries ago.
A democracy can be defined as a system that is best for the development of a free country offering its people more and more rights and freedoms, but it can't be defined as a system that must have those freedoms. For Germans the right to live is an essential part of democracy.. well in several other democratic countries the death penalty is still legal and yet we accept those as democracies although we think of this as a violation of human rights.

Democracy is NOT just about doing what the people want.
...
People want that, but the government can't give it to them. Government is not an instrument to magically give people what they want.

I never said it was to magically do anything. But the idea behind democracy was that since not all people can vote for any decison that has to be made the people will elect a government who will enforce the people's will. That's why in a democracy the highest postion of the state is the people itself. At least in theory. And I think my examples with going to war or joining the EURO Zone are a little bit closer to reality than yours. And it is such decisions we elected our leaders for to make, representing the will of the people. And if a government does exactly the opposite of the will of the people then that isn't very democratic. And that's it.
A democracy IS about a government making decisions for the people, representing their will. If you think otherwise then I think you should rethink why you are voting at all since after your theory the elected government does what it wants anyway. (It's sad enough that as said above we come closer and closer to such a reality already). And when I speak about the will of the people then I speak about making decisions about the state, not about WISHES. What you mentioned above is not the will of the majority but wishes everyone has. That is something different and apart from that I don't really think that the majority of people would ask their government for such stuff since they KNOW that the government can't give it to them. And in case the government COULD give it to them.. then I actually see no reason not to give them what they want. But that's totally uninteresting theory anyway.

To end this post I just want to say another thing.
I'm happy for you that you have so much books about democracy and ancient civilizations at home. But let me tell you something. Go read some book about social behavior. Since what you do here is calling everyone who's not agreeing with you an idiot and treat him like he was in kindergarden and having a 50 points lower IQ than you and was unworthy to discuss with you.
If you disagree with a point then come with arguments or your opinions but not with insults or comments displaying your disrespect. That won't lead anywhere, that won't help this discussion and it makes you look well.. let's say not very mature. I think that's not the niveau you're capable of. If you've really read so much books about the topic you should be able to deliver real hard facts and arguments.
If you give us such an argument, we can think about it and continue the discussion. But please how else do you expect us to react to a comment like "Go read a book" but losing interest in discussing with you?

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by PrinceThrakhath
I said they were elected totally legal. Nothing was enforced there. They may have enforced something later but no force was ever necessary for them to become the leading party in Germany. And transforming the German democracy into a one party dictatorship was also a democratic decision of the German parliament. The majority of the parties agreed with it.
I didn't say the 3rd Reich was a democracy I said they were elected - totally legal and democratic. What followed is something else, but the beginning wasn't forced at all.

Well, here’s some basics:

1. Nazi Germany was a totalitarian dictatorship.
2. Any decision or process that transforms a democratic nation in a totalitarian dictatorship is, by definition, anti-democratic.
3. To say the nazi rise to power was " totally legal and democratic" and that " the beginning wasn't forced at all" doesn't correspond well to the facts.

It's not my intention to humiliate you, but you are not right about what happened. More info can be found on this excellent book: “Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich” by William Shirer.

I know that such rights and freedoms existed in very old civilizations. So? That doesn't prove that a democracy has to include those rights by difinition. That just proves that such rights often exist and existed already very long ago in democracies.

Hehe, this is the kind of "logic" that makes robots in star trek explode.

Now, seriously, Democracy has to include those rights by definition. The very foundation of Democracy is to limit its power so whoever is in rule doesn’t abuse it. The government must rule for everyone, not just for the people who voted for them. Personal freedoms and individual rights are a constant on all democratic nations.

One example. In the first decades of the USA slavery was perfectly legal in the southern states. But still the USA were accepted as a democratic country. Do you say your country wasn't democratic until after the civil war?

There were slaves in Greece. As I said, democracy is about the rights of citizens, and slaves were not considered citizens. Women in Greece had little rights, too. That was wrong. I'm not saying that all democracies all the time were perfect, but they were better almost always much better then their non-democratic counterparts.

The USA is not my country, my country is Brazil. We had lots of civil wars and revolts, but slavery was abolished peacefully, sometime before the Empire was replaced by the Republic. And for several times in our history our Constitutional Tropical Monarchy was much more democratic than our Republic.

I think some historians might disagree there. Yet slavery is taking away most of the rights a democracy should offer every citizen.

No, slavery takes away most rights a democracy should offer EVERYONE, not just citizens. People from other countries are not citizens either, but they have lots of rights. The fact is that a citizen could not be enslaved, and that could only happened if he lost his citizenship status. But since rights were not universal, but restricted to part of the society, slavery is was allowed to exist. Of course that was bad.

I see a slight conflict here. And what about the times before women were allowed to elect? I think refusing them to elect is taking away a very important individual right.

As I said, women didn't have full-citizenship. I didn't say all democracies are perfect, but that evolution lead us to what we have know.

You must understand that democracy is a necessary evil – or a lesser evil if you will. Remember what Churchill said, it’s the worst form of government, with the exception of all others.

But were all countries no democracies before women were allowed to elect there? You see, it is true that a democracy usually offeres certain rights to its people, but those rights changed over history and were not always the same.

That's incorrect, the ideals are the same: consensual government, individual rights and Personal freedoms. What changed is that such rights were restricted to very few, and now they are universal.

But for certain we know what democracy is NOT. And that are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes where the ruler has absolute power and people have no rights.

No Democracy can ever be that way, because by the time a nation reaches that point, it isn't democratic anymore.

A democracy can be defined as a system that is best for the development of a free country offering its people more and more rights and freedoms, but it can't be defined as a system that must have those freedoms.

It should give "more and more" freedoms it doesn't necessarily have to give in the first place?

Democracy is e a system that limits the power of the State against its citizens, and allows the citizens to influence the decisions of the government. It's a government for the people - all the people, not just the majority. What changed is that now Democracy extends these rights to everyone - universal rights.

For Germans the right to live is an essential part of democracy.. well in several other democratic countries the death penalty is still legal and yet we accept those as democracies although we think of this as a violation of human rights.

Logical fallacy. If you commit a crime in Germany, you'll go to jail. That doesn't mean that for the Germans the right of freedom isn't an essential part of Democracy.

If you think otherwise then I think you should rethink

Say it less, do it more.

-or-

I don't think so.

Since what you do here is calling everyone who's not agreeing with you an idiot and treat him like he was in kindergarden and having a 50 points lower IQ than you and was unworthy to discuss with you.

Actually, that's what tc cgi did.

But honestly, I'm sorry if that happened. It certainly wasn't my intention. I'll try to be nicer. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
I think I didn’t express myself clearly before. It’s quite obvious we agree.

It would indeed appear so. Which makes me wonder why you oppposed Thrakhath's original argument (that the Iraqis have the right to elect who they want), since what you're saying is not in any way incompatible with the Iraqis having the right to elect anyone.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Originally posted by Delance
You seriously lack the knowledge of the basics of what a democratic government is.

I'll just agree to disagree, then.

The origins of democracy are on ancient Greece. That has been my point since the first message.

Actually, you said Democracy was ORIGINALLY a WESTERN ideal. Now you double back? Or was it a simple typo?

If you lack the culture to actually debate something, trolling isn't a good strategy.

But yet you feel the need to return the favor? Interesting...

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
Actually, you said Democracy was ORIGINALLY a WESTERN ideal. Now you double back? Or was it a simple typo?[/B]

Ancient Greeck is were the Western Civilization was born. You didn't knew that? Amazing.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto
It would indeed appear so. Which makes me wonder why you oppposed Thrakhath's original argument (that the Iraqis have the right to elect who they want), since what you're saying is not in any way incompatible with the Iraqis having the right to elect anyone.

I said that they should form a democratic government on Iraq, and not let another totalitarian dictatorship take over. My point is that no group in Iraq, majority or not, should be allowed to commit atrocities to the others.

 

[PrinceThrakhath]

I never said that a majority should take over. I said let them elect a democratic government, maybe observe that election and make sure it is really free and everything ok with it, but then when such a government is elected, get out and let them do the rest. That's what I said, not more, not less.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Originally posted by Delance
Ancient Greeck is were the Western Civilization was born. You didn't knew that? Amazing.

However, Greece isn't a WESTERN country itself. You said democracy is originaly WESTERN, meaning it was first used in the America's. That is, if I understand that to be Western, you have to be in the Western hemisphere. Did that change recently or something?

 

[PrinceThrakhath]

I never said that a majority should be allowed to commit atrocities to the others. I said let them elect a democratic government, maybe observe that election and make sure it is really free and everything ok with it, but then when such a government is elected, get out and let them do the rest. That's what I said, not more, not less.
The problem that Iraq consists of many different cultures and religion groups is something that they must handle themselves. We can't force them to create a federalistic Iraq just because we might think that's what would work or something like that.

Originally posted by Delance

1. Nazi Germany was a totalitarian dictatorship.
2. Any decision or process that transforms a democratic nation in a totalitarian dictatorship is, by definition, anti-democratic.
3. To say the nazi rise to power was " totally legal and democratic" and that " the beginning wasn't forced at all" doesn't correspond well to the facts.

Well I don't know what facts you have, but I know that the NAZI party was democratic elected, Hitler was elected Chancellor, he didn't make a coup or anything to get that position. And the first few decisions to get rid of several democratic organs in Germany were all decisions made by a majority in the parliament, not just by the Nazis. Several German parties were responsible back then, they made it very easy for the NAZIs.
Regarding your 2nd point, I'd say that's up to ones point of view. In my point of view it was a democratic decision, no matter if the result is still a democracy or not.

Now, seriously, Democracy has to include those rights by definition. The very foundation of Democracy is to limit its power so whoever is in rule doesn’t abuse it. The government must rule for everyone, not just for the people who voted for them. Personal freedoms and individual rights are a constant on all democratic nations.

It is true that a democracy must have limited power and that it must rule for everyone. But with pointing that out you haven't argued my point. I wasn't denying that I said that a democracy doesn't necessarily have to include several freedoms and rights. It is "just" a government elected by a majority, that's all, that says nothing about the rights that are granted.

There were slaves in Greece. As I said, democracy is about the rights of citizens, and slaves were not considered citizens. Women in Greece had little rights, too. That was wrong. I'm not saying that all democracies all the time were perfect, but they were better almost always much better then their non-democratic counterparts.

I never denied that either. I just said a democracy doesn't have to grant certain freedoms and rights by definition.

No, slavery takes away most rights a democracy should offer EVERYONE, not just citizens. People from other countries are not citizens either, but they have lots of rights. The fact is that a citizen could not be enslaved, and that could only happened if he lost his citizenship status. But since rights were not universal, but restricted to part of the society, slavery is was allowed to exist. Of course that was bad.
...
As I said, women didn't have full-citizenship. I didn't say all democracies are perfect, but that evolution lead us to what we have know.

Now that's a logic I don't share. I said if a democracy would grant certain rights by definition then states not granting those to their citizens would be no democracies.
Telling me now that that depends on that state's definition of who is a citizen and who not, that's kinda.. odd.
Especially since you said above that a democracy must rule for all people, not just a majority. Well.. you don't want that to happen in Iraq. You think if lets say the Kurds would rule the country and giving the rest of the people no or fewer rights, then that would be no democratic government.
But at the same time you say it was democratic in the USA that the white government rules just for whites and Blacks had no rights, or that it was democratic for men to rule and for women to have to right to elect.
Well I say it again, quoting you, if a democratic government MUST rule for ALL people and that a majority must not supress a minority.. well then the USA, most European states and several other countries have been no democracies until recently.

You must understand that democracy is a necessary evil – or a lesser evil if you will. Remember what Churchill said, it’s the worst form of government, with the exception of all others.

Never disagreed with that either.

That's incorrect, the ideals are the same: consensual government, individual rights and Personal freedoms. What changed is that such rights were restricted to very few, and now they are universal.

Then I don't see what would be so wrong about if those rights were restricted to just the Kurds now. You say it's the same.
What's the difference between denying women certain rights and denying the Christians or Sunni or whoever in Iraq certain rights?

But for certain we know what democracy is NOT. And that are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes where the ruler has absolute power and people have no rights.

Again... never denied that.

Democracy is e a system that limits the power of the State against its citizens, and allows the citizens to influence the decisions of the government. It's a government for the people - all the people, not just the majority. What changed is that now Democracy extends these rights to everyone - universal rights.

Same as above..

Logical fallacy. If you commit a crime in Germany, you'll go to jail. That doesn't mean that for the Germans the right of freedom isn't an essential part of Democracy.

It is, but it is one right the state may take away from you, as stated in the constitution. Taking away the right to live is absolutely forbidden by the constitution, no matter what, except for soldiers who volunteer.
And that absolute right to live doesn't exist in the USA. There the state can take that right away from you. Now does that mean the USA are a worse democracy than the German? Or does it mean they are no democracy at all? NO because as I said, being a democracy doesn't mean by definition that you must grant certain rights.
It just means that the ruling government must be elected by a majority and must have limited power and that the people must be able to elect a new government when they don't agree with the way their government rules anymore. That's all.

 

[PrinceThrakhath]

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
However, Greece isn't a WESTERN country itself. You said democracy is originaly WESTERN, meaning it was first used in the America's. That is, if I understand that to be Western, you have to be in the Western hemisphere. Did that change recently or something?

The western hemisphere includes America and entire Europe. As far as I know Greece is part of Europe, so I have to agree with Delance here. Western doesn't mean American.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Originally posted by PrinceThrakhath
The western hemisphere includes America and entire Europe. As far as I know Greece is part of Europe, so I have to agree with Delance here. Western doesn't mean American.

I always thought western hemisphere was west of the prime maridian (0 degrees east/west). I guess I should write a letter to all the map makers to relocate the PM to 30 degrees east.