Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (160567)	2/11/2003 11:50:42 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575422

Al, <Democracy in the new Iraq is a myth> Yep, another reason to let those Iraqis suffer under the heavy hand of a madman. They certainly aren't ready for a democracy; therefore, let Saddam continue to use his weapons of mass murder on his own people. It's funny how you bring up the editorials of intellectual chickens to counter the political motives of "chicken hawks." Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (160567)	2/11/2003 12:14:50 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575422

Democracy in the new Iraq is a myth Before we totally laugh out loud at the concept, let us consider the fact that the Saudis have announced they are planning democratic reforms and considering asking the United States to withdraw military support. You have to stop and think about this. The war with Iraq hasn't even started yet, and Bush's policy is ALREADY having major positive effect in the region. Who would have considered this two years ago? Who knows what the Iraqi brand of democracy may look like? Who knows what it will take to get it up and running? One thing is known, however, and that is that it will be a vast improvement over the current situation. Ten years from now, we could well be looking at a Middle East region where the Saudis, Iraq, and Iran all have made tremendous strides toward democracy. And there will be one person to blame for it: George W. Bush, the president of the "hanging chads".

To: Alighieri who wrote (160567)	2/11/2003 1:13:02 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1575422

Al Re..MacArthur couldn't have succeeded without these samurai for change, just as Britain couldn't have left behind a democratic India without the transformation in Hindu thinking wrought by Ram Mohan Roy and the cultural transformation of Macauley's educational reforms. There was, again, an indigenous class ready to use the gifts of freedom. There were foundations to build on. But where are those foundations in Iraq after 35 years of Saddam? Kurtz and other similarly glum American academics promptly spiral away into a distant future, three or more decades on, when new US schools and universities in Baghdad have produced the new young Iraqi elite they seek. Fine ...but you can see George W clouding over within 30 seconds. What is this guy saying here. That we shouldn't try because it can't be done, or that we shouldn't try because GW doesn't have the patience and determination to see it through. If he is saying we shouldn't try because the infrastructure isn't there, one must ask if the infrastructure was there in S. Korea, India, Japan etc. Beside, that is a false proposition; to totally overhaul the gov. it is necessary to get rid of the existing gov. to install a dem. one. Quite often it is helpful not to have a lot of old outdated assumptions. One thing that is there is the misery, and the desperation, which makes reform easier, because the status quo is so horrible, that reform is obvious to all. As for GW staying power, I wouldn't discredit him too much on that just yet. GW doesn't seem to make a lot of decisions based on polls, just on whether he feels it is the right thing to do. And staying the course in Iraq is the right thing to do,according to the author, so why wouldn't he? I could make quite a decent Iraqi case for MMP, the mixed member proportional system Roy Jenkins embraced, probably with a cantonal twist if the word "federal" causes too many frissons. The Kurds and Sunnis and Shias will need their autonomy, the Turkomans and Assyrians will need their voice. If they need their voice, why on earth isn't he in favor of liberating the Iraqis and installing a gov. which will give the differing factions a voice. Isn't that the humane thing to do?