Do we really believe in Democracy?

[zefrendylia]

If we are really trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, it would seem to me that one of the defining premises of a democracy is obeying the will of the people. Not only has the U.S. and its people ignored the 80% of Iraqis (without Kurds it would be closer to 90%) who want the occupiers to leave immediately or in 6 months (this poll was taken 8 months ago), but now there is a majority within the Iraqi parliament who are calling for a withdrawal:


Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation
By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland
AlterNet.org

Wednesday 09 May 2007

More than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected for the first time on Tuesday the continuing occupation of their country. The US media ignored the story.
On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).

Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.

What is clear is that while the U.S. Congress dickers over timelines and benchmarks, Baghdad faces a major political showdown of its own. The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or supporters of the Iraqi government and "anti-government forces," nor is it a clash of "moderates" against "radicals"; the defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the United States and Britain.

The continuing occupation of Iraq and the allocation of Iraq's resources - especially its massive oil and natural gas deposits - are the defining issues that now separate an increasingly restless bloc of nationalists in the Iraqi parliament from the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is dominated by Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists.
...[for more go to http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050907R.shtml]


I find it interesting how some use examples of "united" Iraqis as a sign of progress. Indeed it is progress for the Iraqi people who have been bitterly divided by the occupation. But as stated in the article, the key elements of this newfound nationalism is expelling the occupiers and rejecting American privatization of Iraq's natural resources--2 elements that are unacceptable to the White House. If we continue our blind arrogance and anti-democratic attitude towards the Iraqi people, God help us if one day we have to fight a united insurgency.

[Gaffer]

sadr's boys want us out, isn't that a surprise. How come the dems aren't all over this story? Could it be because its just that, a story?

The only iraqi's that want us out are sadr and his followers. He wants so badly to take saddams place as the big kahuna in iraq.

[zefrendylia]

sadr's boys want us out, isn't that a surprise. How come the dems aren't all over this story? Could it be because its just that, a story?

The only iraqi's that want us out are sadr and his followers. He wants so badly to take saddams place as the big kahuna in iraq.

Well, now that "story" is in the WP:

Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on US Withdrawal
By Joshua Partlow
The Washington Post

Friday 11 May 2007

Baghdad - A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html?hpid=topnews


As you will notice, there is support for this resolution among Sunnis, Shiite, and Kurds--not just "followers of Sadr."

[LiberalNation]

Have a referendum. All Iraqis can vote, if they vote us out, we leave and save face too.

[loosecannon]

sadr's boys want us out, isn't that a surprise. How come the dems aren't all over this story? Could it be because its just that, a story?

The only iraqi's that want us out are sadr and his followers.

Sadr's followers make up slightly MORE than 50% of Iraqis.

So it is more than just a minor story.

[Kathianne]

If Bush is smart, he'll make it clear that he has heard the majority. Set his own timelines, allowing them a small window, say 2 weeks, to make clear their wants. Then follow where it leads.

[manu1959]

but the president wants us to stay for two more years.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/11/wiraq111.xml

[diuretic]

but the president wants us to stay for two more years.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/11/wiraq111.xml

There's a disconnect between the President and the PM and the parliament? Not unusual.

[Gaffer]

Sadr's followers make up slightly MORE than 50% of Iraqis.

So it is more than just a minor story.

Wrong they make up about 50% of the shea. Not all iraqi's.

And I haven't seen a thing from any of the iraqi bloggers I read that there is a time line being considered by the iraqi government. Seems they would know something about that if it was being considered.

[loosecannon]

Wrong they make up about 50% of the shea. Not all iraqi's.

And I haven't seen a thing from any of the iraqi bloggers I read that there is a time line being considered by the iraqi government. Seems they would know something about that if it was being considered.

50% of the Shia is still 30% of Iraqis and I think you are wrong.

I think Sadr can snap his fingers and every Shia in Iraq would take up arms in his name. Everything I have read about Sadr says that his influence is underestimated by everybody outside Iraq.

Sadr's bloc comprises 30% of the parliment. But the Medhi Army is by far the strongest militia in Iraq.

[loosecannon]

If Bush is smart, he'll make it clear that he has heard the majority. Set his own timelines, allowing them a small window, say 2 weeks, to make clear their wants. Then follow where it leads.

I am astonished. No shocked. No shitfaced. No, can not even believe that you said that.

You are kidding right? I thought you were a Bushbot.

[Gaffer]

50% of the Shia is still 30% of Iraqis and I think you are wrong.

I think Sadr can snap his fingers and every Shia in Iraq would take up arms in his name. Everything I have read about Sadr says that his influence is underestimated by everybody outside Iraq.

Sadr's bloc comprises 30% of the parliment. But the Medhi Army is by far the strongest militia in Iraq.

And the medhi army is part of what's being dismantled in the surge. sadr has lost a lot of power since he ran off to iraq. I'm sure he plans to return and stir things up as soon as we leave tho. The iraqi government needs to arrest his ass and execute him as quickly as posible if they want to survive. Otherwise he will become another saddam under iran's thumb.

[loosecannon]

And the medhi army is part of what's being dismantled in the surge. sadr has lost a lot of power since he ran off to iraq. I'm sure he plans to return and stir things up as soon as we leave tho. The iraqi government needs to arrest his ass and execute him as quickly as posible if they want to survive. Otherwise he will become another saddam under iran's thumb.

You have delusions of grandeur Gaffe. Unless we plan to kill 60% of Iraqis we will never destroy the Shia resistance.

I thought our goal was to liberate them with democracy not assassinate their popular leaders.

[lily]

Have a referendum. All Iraqis can vote, if they vote us out, we leave and save face too.


Liberal.....that makes too much sense!!!

[avatar4321]

Let's just screw the Iraqis. It doesnt matter if they are killed. all thats important is we get out... I love that attitude of you guys. I love your great compassion.

Let's ignore all the global ramnifications of running out of Iraq. Let's ignore the wake of death and destruction that will follow. The destruction of world economies and any power we may have to stop terrorism. Let's just ignore the great loss of life that will ensure. After all they are just "raghead Iraqis" right? They don't deserve a chance to life their lives free. We should just step back and let the Iranians/Saudis/Turks play games with their little lives.

[diuretic]

Let's just screw the Iraqis. It doesnt matter if they are killed. all thats important is we get out... I love that attitude of you guys. I love your great compassion.

Let's ignore all the global ramnifications of running out of Iraq. Let's ignore the wake of death and destruction that will follow. The destruction of world economies and any power we may have to stop terrorism. Let's just ignore the great loss of life that will ensure. After all they are just "raghead Iraqis" right? They don't deserve a chance to life their lives free. We should just step back and let the Iranians/Saudis/Turks play games with their little lives.

Yes, they're having such a fun time of it right now it would be a pity to leave.

[loosecannon]

Let's just screw the Iraqis. It doesnt matter if they are killed. all thats important is we get out... I love that attitude of you guys. I love your great compassion.

Let's ignore all the global ramnifications of running out of Iraq. Let's ignore the wake of death and destruction that will follow. The destruction of world economies and any power we may have to stop terrorism. Let's just ignore the great loss of life that will ensure. After all they are just "raghead Iraqis" right? They don't deserve a chance to life their lives free. We should just step back and let the Iranians/Saudis/Turks play games with their little lives.

Cry me a fucking River.

We DESTROYED their Army, their civil infrastructure, and most of their society. We have turned Iraq into a mirror of Afghanistan.

I didn't choose to do that YOUR BOY BUSH DID!

Now if he doesn't have a GD plan to establish peace, THROW the SOB out and hire a CIC who can handle the job and fix Bush's mess.

[lily]

Let's just screw the Iraqis. It doesnt matter if they are killed. all thats important is we get out... I love that attitude of you guys. I love your great compassion.


It's been 5 years, when are they going to start taking some responsibility? Not to keep repeating myself, but the Iraqi Parliment has done NOTHING and they are now going to take the summer off, while their citizens die along with our soldiers doing all the work.......you know this is a 2 way street, we can want democracy for them all we want, but until they want it, then it's useless.


Let's ignore all the global ramnifications of running out of Iraq. Let's ignore the wake of death and destruction that will follow. The destruction of world economies and any power we may have to stop terrorism. Let's just ignore the great loss of life that will ensure. After all they are just "raghead Iraqis" right? They don't deserve a chance to life their lives free. We should just step back and let the Iranians/Saudis/Turks play games with their little lives.
Well....we wouldn't be in this mess if we stayed in Afghanistan and kept our eye on the prize. Afghanistan could have been a shining example of democracy. As it stands now all of the Middle East, including one of used to be best allies Saudi Arabia is looking at Iraq and saying no thanks. If that's democracy, I want no part of it.

You want stability in Iraq, then pick a side and stop tying the soldiers hands. It's going to end up being a puppet government anyway, so stop playing games and be done with it. Democracy is a foreing idea to them, it seems they can't handle it and do better with a ruler.

[Doniston]

Let's just screw the Iraqis. It doesnt matter if they are killed. all thats important is we get out... I love that attitude of you guys. I love your great compassion.

Let's ignore all the global ramnifications of running out of Iraq. Let's ignore the wake of death and destruction that will follow. The destruction of world economies and any power we may have to stop terrorism. Let's just ignore the great loss of life that will ensure. After all they are just "raghead Iraqis" right? They don't deserve a chance to life their lives free. We should just step back and let the Iranians/Saudis/Turks play games with their little lives.

No, actually in response to every one of your several rants, the answer is that we let THEM make their own decisions, and run their own lives. They want us out. It is now on their shoulders. We can continue to support them, but we have to stop "RUNNING" them.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Ask the Palestinians about this. As soon as they popularly elected a party, they got slammed by Bush. So clearly "democracy" isn't the goal for the Middle East. Rule acceptable to Israel is. Once you understand this, you understand.

[TheSage]

Even our own democracy is a sham democracy. The people actually have little power. We are allowed to choose from between multiple candidates selected by the elite to enact THEIR agenda. Even once in office, they are in no way bound to do anything they said they would. Of course they can be voted out, but they will only be replaced by another groomed by the military industrial complex to enact THEIR agenda.

[avatar4321]

You people seriously make me sick. Scares me how callous you are.

[TheSage]

You people seriously make me sick. Scares me how callous you are.


Do you support democracy avatar? If they vote us out should we leave? Or is it that you support democracy as long as it supports the agenda of zionist globalism and against democracy when it doesn't?

[lily]

You people seriously make me sick. Scares me how callous you are.


We're callous for facing facts?

[LiberalNation]

Yeah, but those who want/wanted this war aren't. Gimmie a break, yes I'm callous, don't deny it but anyone who supports war, ect. is no better.

[loosecannon]

Even our own democracy is a sham democracy. The people actually have little power. We are allowed to choose from between multiple candidates selected by the elite to enact THEIR agenda. Even once in office, they are in no way bound to do anything they said they would. Of course they can be voted out, but they will only be replaced by another groomed by the military industrial complex to enact THEIR agenda.

Well at least we agree about all of that.

[loosecannon]

You people seriously make me sick. Scares me how callous you are.

You are a warmongering Islamophobe and you think others are callous?

Define callous

[loosecannon]

Ask the Palestinians about this. As soon as they popularly elected a party, they got slammed by Bush. So clearly "democracy" isn't the goal for the Middle East. Rule acceptable to Israel is. Once you understand this, you understand.


Palestinians didn't get slammed they got starved and had all their money stolen for two years.

Lebanon got invaded and ransacked because Israel wanted to teach them not to integrate Hezbollah into the parliment.

Hell even Saddam was our ally, and Bin Laden as well, as was Noriega while they served our needs. Once our needs changed and they stayed the same we turned them into evil Villians with the turn of a PR page.

[TheSage]

Let's just screw the Iraqis. It doesnt matter if they are killed. all thats important is we get out... I love that attitude of you guys. I love your great compassion.

Let's ignore all the global ramnifications of running out of Iraq. Let's ignore the wake of death and destruction that will follow. The destruction of world economies and any power we may have to stop terrorism. Let's just ignore the great loss of life that will ensure. After all they are just "raghead Iraqis" right? They don't deserve a chance to life their lives free. We should just step back and let the Iranians/Saudis/Turks play games with their little lives.

But it's ok to play games with american lives?

Look at the rules of engagement over there. It's a joke. Our boys are turkeys in a turkey shoot and unable to do anything. What is the goal?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Even our own democracy is a sham democracy. The people actually have little power. We are allowed to choose from between multiple candidates selected by the elite to enact THEIR agenda. Even once in office, they are in no way bound to do anything they said they would. Of course they can be voted out, but they will only be replaced by another groomed by the military industrial complex to enact THEIR agenda.

I agree in principle with this post. Democrat and Republican is tweedle dee and tweedle dum, with RARE exceptions.

Back when I was a newspaper reporter in New Jersey, the journalists (usually liberal) would joke that democracy was bad for the state, and that it really needed a "benevolent dictator." I always laughed because I see the truth of this. Democracy is too apt to lead to "rule by the lowest common denominator," which is a pretty shitty state of affairs. I realize monarchy, oligarcy, etc. have drawbacks, but...

Actual democracy gives us Cheez Whiz, Fox News, Danielle Steele, Oprah and animal-stripe NFL drawstring pants worn by adult men and women. Elitism gave us Bach, Van Gogh and Shakespeare, the Roman Republic, Aristotle and the crown jewels.

[TheSage]

I agree in principle with this post. Democrat and Republican is tweedle dee and tweedle dum, with RARE exceptions.

Back when I was a newspaper reporter in New Jersey, the journalists (usually liberal) would joke that democracy was bad for the state, and that it really needed a "benevolent dictator." I always laughed because I see the truth of this. Democracy is too apt to lead to "rule by the lowest common denominator," which is a pretty shitty state of affairs. I realize monarchy, oligarcy, etc. have drawbacks, but...

I envision a dictatorship where freedom is mandatory, and there are no legislators to slowly strip away our freedoms.

[loosecannon]

Actual democracy gives us Cheez Whiz, Fox News, Danielle Steele, Oprah and animal-stripe NFL drawstring pants worn by adult men and women. Elitism gave us Bach, Van Gogh and Shakespeare, the Roman Republic, Aristotle and the crown jewels.


One of the most memorable posts i have ever read on a board.

That was a different elitism. That was pre industrial revolution elitism.

I actually do not mind or object to elitism. It isn't monarchy or oligarchy. It is a class dedicated to patronizing the arts and sciences for a variety of reasons.

Any meritocracy will create elites.

[diuretic]

I agree in principle with this post. Democrat and Republican is tweedle dee and tweedle dum, with RARE exceptions.

Back when I was a newspaper reporter in New Jersey, the journalists (usually liberal) would joke that democracy was bad for the state, and that it really needed a "benevolent dictator." I always laughed because I see the truth of this. Democracy is too apt to lead to "rule by the lowest common denominator," which is a pretty shitty state of affairs. I realize monarchy, oligarcy, etc. have drawbacks, but...

Actual democracy gives us Cheez Whiz, Fox News, Danielle Steele, Oprah and animal-stripe NFL drawstring pants worn by adult men and women. Elitism gave us Bach, Van Gogh and Shakespeare, the Roman Republic, Aristotle and the crown jewels.

If you knew anything about the struggle between democracy and rule by an elite you wouldn't be so dismissive and trivialise it in that manner. Anyway Aristotle would be offended. Not Plato, the later, older Plato would approve of your support of rule by elite but Aristotle, no, I don't think he would have seen eye to eye. The struggle between democracy and elitism, where democracy wins, gives people the right to choose between Oprah and Beethoven.

[diuretic]

I envision a dictatorship where freedom is mandatory, and there are no legislators to slowly strip away our freedoms.

I don't know about mandating freedom, if something's mandated it speaks of an authority which can issue a mandate but it seems you're in favour of a civilised form of anarchism.

[Hugh Lincoln]

If you knew anything about the struggle between democracy and rule by an elite you wouldn't be so dismissive and trivialise it in that manner. Anyway Aristotle would be offended. Not Plato, the later, older Plato would approve of your support of rule by elite but Aristotle, no, I don't think he would have seen eye to eye.

Don't you have this backward... Aristotle for elitism, Plato, not so much? Granted my classics could be better. But Aristotle went so far as to defend slavery, so I'm not sure he'd be offended by my post.

I don't think there has ever been a struggle in history between "democracy" and "rule by an elite." Rather, I think it's been struggles between elites. And the elites proposing to replace the other elites do so by appealing to "democracy." The story of monarchy's fall in Europe was basically the story of the rise of the just-under-royal class, as in the nobles v. King John at Runnemede. Democracy is just monarchy with better public relations. Consider: if Hillary is elected President, that will make a 24-year stretch in which America is controlled by just TWO FAMILIES. There are indeed monarchies with faster rates of turnover and more responsiveness to the popular will than that.


The struggle between democracy and elitism, where democracy wins, gives people the right to choose between Oprah and Beethoven

The "right" to "choose" between Oprah and Beethoven? Under democracy, Beethoven works at the Post Office and never gets the chance to compose. The sophistication of his arrangements is appreciated by too few to be commercially successful. So we get Billy Ray Cyrus, Ricky Martin and Paula Abdul, see?

Basically what I'm saying here is that the limitation of a large franchise is that the more you bring in, the lower the bar goes. Allow property-owning white males only the vote, and you get James Madison. Allow illegal aliens, felons, the illiterate and 18-year-old girls with an IQ of 83 to vote, and you get America today.

[Gunny]

Well, now that "story" is in the WP:

Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on US Withdrawal
By Joshua Partlow
The Washington Post

Friday 11 May 2007

Baghdad - A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html?hpid=topnews


As you will notice, there is support for this resolution among Sunnis, Shiite, and Kurds--not just "followers of Sadr."

So what exactly is your point? The Iraqi's want a gradual withdrawal of US troops and replacment with Iraqi troops. Why do I think that has been the plan from Day One?

If the government of Iraq wants to set its own timeline, it's their country and their business, and we should honor it.