Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is a debate page, not an article.
Opinions are welcome. Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.


Contents

yes



Yes!!!

Democracy is possible anywhere in which a majority of people wish to have a minority under their thumb. Democracy is in essence mob rule, so if you can get enough people to agree on a few things and turn on the ones who do not feel the same way, then voila! you have a Democracy. Personally, I find nothing more frightening than the idea of pure Democracy.

Comment--- If you would please explain your opinion.(This is supposed to be a debate topic and one finds it just a touch hard to debate a simple "Yes")

It MUST be possible. Otherwise, why would the President have invaded? --Fullmetajacket 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST) (Ah, so that's how it works!)

  • America can invade until there is democracy.I fail to believe that any of the reasons for the invasion was just to promote Democracy. We're bigger enemies with Communist Cuba, why aren't we shoving some good ol' American Democracy down their throats? --Cpryd001 19:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
How much oil does Cuba have? --Scrap 21:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


If you are asking if Iraq will ever become a 'Representative Democracy' such as the United States, then the answer is that they already are. Iraq held thier first elections in January 2005. There was a total of some 8.4 million votes cast, which was a 58 % turnout. (This does not count the 280,303 registered expatriates.) The second election was in December 2005. The turnout for this election was reported by several organizations to be at 70%. In contrast, the highest voter turnout in the United States was 63% in 1960 (the 2004 election was 55%). If you define a democracy as a government that is chosen by its by its people; then Iraq is more of a true democracy than the United States ever has been.--Uwops 22:01, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No

Democracy is a Western idea and it is completely at odds with everything Islam teaches. Muslims(in Iraq or any other country) cannot tolerate something that goes completely against everything they believe. This is why there are no true democracies in the Middle East, except for Israel. Bohdan 16:11, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

ChristianHero put it well over at Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?. There are two kinds of democracy. Rather than reprint everything he said I will refer to them as the democracy of Rousseau and the democracy of Jefferson. In the former, the majority, once it has been determined, sets out to destroy economically, militarily, and physically whichever minority it chooses to scapegoat at the moment. This is what we now have in Iraq - the Shiites have selected the Sunnis for destruction. While they seem to be getting along with the Kurds at present, it is far from inconceivable that they will eventually turn on the latter group too with help from the Iranians and possibly even our allies the Turks.

In the latter form of democracy, the people also vote, but are guided by a more realistic assessment of what constitutes a good society, and by that which is noblest in their religious tradition. At a minimum, this requires an educated populace, which is not possible in the cauldron which Iraq has become. It may be possible in Kurdistan after that region is permitted to secede from Iraq, but probably not elsewhere. User:Amyz 14:24, May 18, 2007 (EDT)

democracy is not capable in iraq

   to begin with you canot force democracy at gun point, it just wont happen, we are over thier trying to inforce our style of life and polotics on a country that is very imature and young

2nd: we are expecting to much of them, we want them to completly transform society, give up differences and unite all for democracy, and do it quickly. it cant happen it took at least half a century for it to take complete root in europe, the untited states had kinks to work out, create a hole new constitution and democracy was still shaky even into the civil war era, and by that i mean our country was spliting democracy was failing and our country was breaking apart. so we look democracy needs to naturly develop within a country not be forced upon it.

Comment

There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which wasn't capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.
—Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

Dpbsmith 15:28, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Comment

I don't believe that we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Although Saddam Hussein was a terrible, evil man, was it really our place to remove him? All of these alleged crimes were done before, and during the Gulf War, yet we didn't bother to call him out on them until now. We even allied with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. I also raise the point that many gruesome dictators are allied with us, and we wouldn't think of invading their countries. We helped bring Augusto Pinochet into power, and we are close friends with Pakistani dictator Pervez Muscharraf. Why is Saddam any different? Removing Sadddam upset balance in Iraq. With him, the people were miserbale. Without him, the people are still miserable, and the risk of death has increased dramatically.

I do not think democracy is possible in Iraq. Whether or not you think so, Iraq IS in a Civil War. The Sunni and Shi'ite militants couldn't commit all of these attrocities with Saddam Hussein in power, as he would crush any form of insurgency almost instantly. With him gone, there are militants and suicide bombers spawning at speeds too rapidly to stop. They are recruited faster than cockroaches are born, and we can never crush them completely. Sending more troops in will merely add more guns to the fight, and more killing. It might be different if we were fighting a war. But we're not. The militants do not follow the traditional rules of combat, and use guerilla tactics that allow only two people to take out an entire platoon.

We can't invade other countries and force democracy on them. It will not work, and it will make us seem like bullies and cause the rest of the world to hate us. We should have left Iraq alone.

Well, we're there now, so we can't leave until we've won! (And by 'we' I mean "President George W Bush", and by 'win', I mean "hold out until 1/21/2009, when some other poor chump will have to find a way out of this monkey trap".) --Ballon 17:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
What the hell is victory? Killing more insurgents? There will always be more. Screw "preserving the morale of the soldiers". They all hate it too, and all the Government officials are trying to do is sell this war that's bankrupting the nation and killing thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis. We can't end the war in Iraq without screwing everything up, so we might as well screw it up less by leaving instead of hurting ourselves more. The Iraqis didn't treat us like liberators when we first invaded, so why would they think of us as liberators after all of the atrocities committed in Iraq? --Raptor Jesus
In Iraq, they essentially want to create a theocratic democracy. This type of government is a contradiction within itself. A democracy where people are fee cannot exist when they are being held under the prejudices of a religion. The nature of religion is discriminatory, because of the time period they were formed in. If a country uses the sometimes discriminating laws of religion as a major part of their own constitution, then true freedom for all cannot exist. The problem is that the Iraqis are so devout that it is very unlikely that they will back down from their concept of a theocratic democracy. --KyleR
What about a variant of said theocratic democracy? The constitution would have to recognize the plurality of religion, but as a compromise, requires every citizen to take up one of those religions (maybe one of the two dominant denominations of Islam). Indonesia has that kind of government (I would know--I was born and raised there), and with the exception of the last few years, they have been relatively all right. No, it's not "real democracy," but it should be enough to bring temporary stability.
Of course, Iraq has none of the heterogeneity of Indonesia, so the big issue will still be reconciling the Sunni and the Shi'ite. However, there have been rumors now that Al Qaeda has some relationship with the Iran government (at least according to our government...), which, if true, shows that it is possible for Sunni and Shi'ite muslims to have a peaceful relationship.--OldManWrinkle 15:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


are you joking me old man wrinkle. rumors of iran and al qaeda relationship. Maybe you should research a little more before you talk. the iranian government was and is one of the primary targets of al-qaeda. they originally (before 9-11) suggested overthrowing the Taliban in the UN, and actually helped bring them down. iran caught dozens of al-qaeda operatives on the afghanistan and iraqi borders and has handed them over to the UN.

Ah... but I did mention two things, "at least according to our government" and "which, if true." Even me stating it as rumors should give an indication that you should take it with a grain of salt. I believe this was mentioned some long time ago, when some analysts suggested that when Afghanistan was attacked, Al-Qaeda members retreated to other countries, Iran being mentioned as one of them. I had thought the notion was rather weird, Iran being a Shi'ite government. As always, I am glad if you would verify this.
Regardless, the main issue still stands, that the key to a stable government in Iraq (or in any country for that matter) is to reconcile that various religious denominations.--OldManWrinkle 04:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
in regards to the shia sunni peaceful relations, it is not necessary to look into Iraq. Iran is one of the biggest supporters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both predominately sunni. i hope my point is proved. btw, how are you supposed to sign your username after your posts?
Personal tools