They kept it fairly backwards compared to the Roman empire though. In that sense it was on a smaller scale.

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 8:38pm:

They had the vote. They used it to score sectarian points.

They are not fit for democracy.  Who knew, in the midst of all that 'we are all the same ' hooey of which you and your ilk are a major and very throaty voice.


Now that it turns out that the Arabs DO need the iron heel over them, you are a strong a throaty voice AGAINS treating them as if they wer just like us.


And you ask me how I came up with the the dishonest Paki B Vgger (PB) formulation to capture your essence: a loud, unprincipled, dishonest pseudo-intellectual arse fancier.

Soren wrote on Jan 17^th, 2016 at 6:40pm:


That's not democracy. It's a very useful illusion of democracy. Uncle held off "democracy" for 5 years, then vetted the candidates.

Of course he would. He's not going to place Iraq in the hands of any old dictator.

Iraq is now divided along ethnic and tribal lines. It was not always thus. Iraq is a new state that has been managed by Mother or Uncle's friends (one of whom turned into an enemy).

Democracy requires institutions. Look at all the ground-work done by Indians prior to succession: the rise of popular leaders, the reform movements, the engagement of political and religious leaders in civil life and the engagement of the people themselves.

We told you all this in 2003, of course. One country can't come in and impose "democracy" on another. The result is inevitable: the rise of a despot, or a fractured, failed state. Read your Edmund Burke.

Voting is not democracy when the result is assured. The only benefit of the vote is that people accept elected leaders easier than they accept coups. But when the result is rigged, this does much damage to the task of democracy. People come to mistrust the process.

This is what recently happened in Egypt, but even there, people accepted the result because they wanted to make democracy work.

The same applies to non-democratic regimes. Once people have voted, it's hard to go back. Read your Machiavelli (the Discourses). Egyptians are not happy with the generals being back in power, no matter what CNN and BBC say. The danger here is more revolution, and this time, the rise of a much harder ruler. This happened all over the world in the 1930s, so it's not without precedent.

The reason the occupying forces succeeded in establishing democratic governments after WWII is that the architecture of state already existed. Germany and Japan had successfully put democratic reforms in place at the end of the 19th century. Germany was united under the Prussians. Japan was united under the Meijis. The work of nationalism had already been done. The people accepted the sovereignty of their governments.

This does not apply to the Middle East, which had its borders designed by Europe and has, with very few exceptions, been ruled by Western-backed tyrants since independence. One of the distinct possibilities the US faced in Iraq was the creation of three separate states: one for the Shi'ites, one for the Sunnis and one for the Kurds. Such an option was bound to fail - they would inevitably come to blows. But this is just what happened anyway. Iraq is in the middle of an ongoing civil war.

To become a democracy, Iraq - like any other country - needs leaders it can see and trust. Unfortunately, anyone capable of doing this was either killed or exiled by Saddam, or killed, exiled or ruled out by Uncle. Uncle, remember, went into Iraq with distinct candidates in mind. All of them failed to win over the Iraqi people. Many proved corrupt. Iraq was a new form of invasion for Uncle - the tried and proven formula is to install a friend and let him kill Uncle's enemies. Democracy? Don't make Uncle laugh.

In Iraq, the US was trapped by its own words. Ultimately, it would have made much more sense to install a new Saddam. Either that, or a Karzai - an ex-employee kept in place with fake elections.

As you can see, Uncle's work is never easy, but as we all know, he's doing it for his friends. The business of Amerika is not making people happy.

The business of Amerika is business.

How long do you expect America to maintain 'control' over Iraq's democracy? You complained that they took 5 years to do it, then complained that they should have taken much longer to lay the groundwork, or allow one to be laid.

Would you genuinely prefer installing dictators in places like Iraq instead of establishing a democracy? Why?

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


No, FD, I'd prefer what the UN would prefer: leaving sovereign states alone unless they prove a threat to others.

Wouldn't you? Why or why not?

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


I would "genuinely prefer" they didn't install anything and stopped invading sovereign nations. What do you think? Or you can once again divert to how evil Muhammad/the caliphate was if you prefer.

Karnal wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 2:44pm:


Ah? That's it? You have gone unusually quiet.
Do you have another option?