In a message dated 9/20/06 5:19:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Obviously you don't think Iraq is ready for
> democracy. What are the tell tail signs that a country
> is "ready" for democracy that doesn't currently have it?

Well, just for one thing, it isn't being occupied
by foreign troops.

Iraq isn't ready for democracy primarily because the
U.S. under Bush has fouled it up so badly.

> Are there countries that try to adopt Democracy
> bet should not have it, because they aren't ready for it?

If they aren't ready for it, they won't be *able* to
adopt it. That's what "not ready" means.
Not being "Occupied" can't be a sign of a country not ready for Democracy because obviously Germany and Japan were occupied while their Democracies were set up and we would call them two of the worlds great democracies today. Is it Bush that fouled it up or could the true culprit be international terrorism intentionally provoking and setting off sectarian violence in order to stop the  progress of reconciliation between factions in order to prevent a unified government? Lastly, it sounds like you have a vested interest that Iraq "not be ready" for democracy so you can blame Bush for it's failure. Why even your hero WJ Clinton came out either today or yesterday and said regardless of whether you think we should have gone into Iraq or not it is in the best interest of everybody that we see the project through, stay the course and complete the mission. Would he push for staying the course and completing the mission of a democratic Iraq if they were "not ready"?
__._,_.___

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Reply via email to