Changes

=='''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things'''==

=='''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things'''==

...and we often get the two confused. The "Democracy" that tugs at people's heartstrings -- the one worth fighting for, the one that is associated with liberty and rights -- is the ''philosophy'' of Democracy. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." There is also a government ''type'' which is called Democracy (hereafter called Democratic Government), which is a government where people vote for things. This type of government is not all that worth getting excited about ''unless'' it is built on a foundation of the philosophy of Democracy. We can't give someone a government that is built on that philosophy, because by nature democracy must be "of the people". So, if America gives any other country a government, no matter how much it looks like a Democratic Government, it will never truly be a democracy. And a dictatorship, if put in place by the people, consisting of the people, and working for the people, will be more of a true democracy than anything we can give them. Granted, Saddam's leadership was certainly not "for the people", but our leadership there is not "of the people", so they are equally not democracy. So the answer is "yes, we can give them a Democratic Government, but no, we can't give them Democracy."

...and we often get the two confused. The "Democracy" that tugs at people's heartstrings -- the one worth fighting for, the one that is associated with liberty and rights -- is the ''philosophy'' of Democracy. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." There is also a government ''type'' which is called Democracy (hereafter called Democratic Government), which is a government where people vote for things. This type of government is not all that worth getting excited about ''unless'' it is built on a foundation of the philosophy of Democracy. We can't give someone a government that is built on that philosophy, because by nature democracy must be "of the people". So, if America gives any other country a government, no matter how much it looks like a Democratic Government, it will never truly be a democracy. And a dictatorship, if put in place by the people, consisting of the people, and working for the people, will be more of a true democracy than anything we can give them. Granted, Saddam's leadership was certainly not "for the people", but our leadership there is not "of the people", so they are equally not democracy. So the answer is "yes, we can give them a Democratic Government, but no, we can't give them Democracy." --[[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]]

I disagree.  In small communities the "Democracy" that tugs at people is possible because the group is small and everyone's say can be heard. As communities grow large, this has generally become impossible.  The founders of the US of A (as I understand it), based America's government on the Greek forum, where everyone was heard by the attending community.  Whether fortunate or unfortunate, when a group grows large is becomes efficient for sections of the large group to elect or appoint a spokesperson to represent the section in the public forum.  In the US of A, this sectionizing is done mainly by geography.  Each state (a stand alone member of the US of A) is represented by 2 Senators.  And in the other House of Congress, representation is done by population, again with a geographical distribution (mostly).  Can these, or some part of these, ideas work anywhere?  Well, yes BUT the underlying assumptions need to be agreed to by those who engage in the forum.  The idea that everyone should have an equal say is not present in Iraq.  In fact, it is strongly objected to by persons who wield weapons to make themselves heard and to quell other voices.  The second assumption that worked in the US of A was elected representation.  This assumption is also against Iraq traditions.  There, the interests of a group have traditionally been a matter of blood or other means of selection rather than by vote.  A brief answer to "Is democracy possible in Iraq" could be stated, "yes, but it will need many indidivudals to tolerate new ideas traditionally unsupported." [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree.  In small communities the "Democracy" that tugs at people is possible because the group is small and everyone's say can be heard. As communities grow large, this has generally become impossible.  The founders of the US of A (as I understand it), based America's government on the Greek forum, where everyone was heard by the attending community.  Whether fortunate or unfortunate, when a group grows large is becomes efficient for sections of the large group to elect or appoint a spokesperson to represent the section in the public forum.  In the US of A, this sectionizing is done mainly by geography.  Each state (a stand alone member of the US of A) is represented by 2 Senators.  And in the other House of Congress, representation is done by population, again with a geographical distribution (mostly).  Can these, or some part of these, ideas work anywhere?  Well, yes BUT the underlying assumptions need to be agreed to by those who engage in the forum.  The idea that everyone should have an equal say is not present in Iraq.  In fact, it is strongly objected to by persons who wield weapons to make themselves heard and to quell other voices.  The second assumption that worked in the US of A was elected representation.  This assumption is also against Iraq traditions.  There, the interests of a group have traditionally been a matter of blood or other means of selection rather than by vote.  A brief answer to "Is democracy possible in Iraq" could be stated, "yes, but it will need many indidivudals to tolerate new ideas traditionally unsupported." [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)