--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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.
True. I should have said not being occupied by an army whose totally incompetent civilian leadership has allowed a civil war to start. And the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII can't be likened to that in Iraq for other reasons as well. The Germans and Japanese *welcomed* the U.S. occupations; there were no significant resistance movements in either nation. Moreover, Japan had had a constitutional monarchy prior to its militarization, and Germany before Hitler's rise to power was a democratic parliamentary system, whereas Iraqis have never lived under democracy. It's a thoroughly bogus analogy. > 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? Bush's incompetence and refusal to do any planning for the postwar period is what made all that possible, of course. > 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. <snore> Do you think you can come up with something just a little more lame? > 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"? Unlike right-wingers, you see, progressives don't feel the need to march in lockstep. I don't reflexively agree with everything Clinton says. I'd certainly give Clinton a hearing on that point, but as far as I can tell, Bush has screwed Iraq up so disastrously that there is *no* good solution. I don't think there's anybody in this country who doesn't want to see Iraq establish a functioning democracy. But again you seem unable to grasp that "not ready" doesn't mean "Forget it." The question is whether our continued presence there will help or hinder the process of *becoming* ready. I think it's entirely possible we've done such terrible damage to that country that we've made it impossible for the Iraqis to form a working democracy for many years to come, regardless of whether we stay or leave. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
