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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247681)	11/8/2007 4:34:00 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, I wrote to Rough Cut: that The Iraqis absolutely did not vote for "a representative form of government." That, you ought to realize, was not one the choices on the ballot. They were allowed to choose from various slates of candidates. The choices were decided on Sectarian lines and any sect that failed to vote, (as many Sunnis did) found that "not voting" had a high cost. The US largely dictated the when, how and who of that election and the Iraqi "voters" faced no choices on who was on the slate of candidates they were allowed to choose from. You replied. Interestingly, you DO NOT dispute my contentions: That the Iraqi people NEVER voted on whether or not they would have a representative form of government, or any other kind of government; That the voters had no choice regarding who was on the slate of candidates, or; That the US largely dictated the when, who or how of that election. So it appears that you agree with my assertion that Rough Cut was wrong in painting the Iraqi election as proof of an "overwhelming vote for a representative government by the Iraqi people.." But let's take a look at your nit picks with my post. First, you write that; "Any sect that fails to vote in this country (the US) also finds themselves without political clout." That's very insightful. Of course in this country being "without political clout" probably won't deny you the rule of law and cost you protection from army and police forces who will not only fail to protect you from robbery, assault, murder and rape, but who will also often aid and abet your assailants. But why spit hairs? Your next nit pick is to suggest that I'm, "saying that the US designed the sectarian slates?" Of course I never said that. What I said was that the Iraqi voters did not get a voice on who was on those slates. When the issue being discussed is whether the Iraqi election was a "vote for a representative form of government" that issue is pertinent. So much for the little nit picks. Now, let's take a look at an interesting statement you threw in, i.e.; "If there's one lesson out of Iraq, it's that you cannot stage democracy on the cheap, even if the people want it...You have to build institutions and security first. People in the US, who have security and build cooperative institutions almost instinctively, forget that these things don't come naturally in most other countries." First, it's amazing to read you write, "if there's one lesson out of Iraq.." You should have learned a lot of lessons out of Iraq but I'll take the one you listed as a start. It's NOT "instinctual" for THINKING people to forget that the basic underpinnings of democracy don't "come naturally in most other countries." I've been telling you that for years and you just now seem to be getting some glimmer that it's a FACT. The reason they "don't come naturally," of course, is because ancient cultures change slowly and it takes a huge amount of time for a culture to change and adopt respect for the rule of law, a willingness to respect the rights of women and minorities and a willingness to abide by the rule of the majority. In countries where politics and religion are almost inseparable it's an even slower and more difficult process. After all, how do you get people to "accept" concepts that currently contravene what they see as tenets of their religion? In any event, suddenly you seem to be getting a glimmer of the wisdom that made so many of us so skeptical of the "we'll remake Iraq into a beacon of democracy" spin that we've been getting for years. Maybe your mind can grasp abstract concepts and use common sense? Time will tell. Finally, about your closing line to me; "But then, this isn't really about Iraq, is it?" You cannot always resort to childish attacks on the motives of people whose opinions offend you. What exactly did you think it was that we were posting about? Ed