Given that the U.S. is allegedly in Iraq for the purpose of installing democracy, I think it is worthwhile to consider whether or not this is even possible.
I can't think of a single example of a genuinely democratic government being formed in a nation by a foreign occupation force.

It seems to me that the nature of democracy makes this impossible.
Looking at the current situation, accepting(for the sake of argument) that the US has genuinely noble intentions in Iraq and will do everything it can to impose a real free democracy on the Iraqi people, how could this be done?
What would the US response be if the Iraqi people vote to put an end to democracy as soon as it is given to them? In such a case, to impose democracy the US would be undermining it.
No matter how they do it, and how much effort is put into distancing the US from the elections, the very fact that the results of the elections will ultimately be enforced by the US will make them undemocratic.

Democracy is a expression of the populations will, not a foreign powers. Democracy is not some great be all and end all, neither was Sovietism. Both have tried to be spread by force and both will fail horribly.

If ever there were a perfect illustration of the fact that the so-called "Golden Rule" is misstated, Iraq is it.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you?"

What if you're a masochist, or a claustophobic? Do you go around hurting people, or blocking their way onto elevators?

"Do unto others as they would have done unto them."

That's what we need to do for our fellow humans. Respect their values and allow them to choose their own destiny. If their values are so incompatible with our own that we can't find common ground, then the best thing to do is leave them the hell alone.

If their values involve hurting or defrauding other people, then you have to make a judicious decision as to whether the victims have a right to be defended and as to whether you're a wise enough warrior to defend them without just making matters worse. Most people make peace with the code of ethics of the place they live, even if they complain about it. "Rescuing" them from a culture that has been evolving for hundreds or thousands of years is a dicey proposition that most of us aren't well-enough informed to dive into.

A true warrior feels a special obligation to defend those least able to defend themselves: children. Yet he also knows that parents have a right to raise their children to become adults in their culture, and that every culture's way of childrearing involves risks and suffering (including psychological) that members of other cultures can't countenance. You have to be very wise indeed to decide to "rescue" children from their own parents and their own society. Watcha gonna do with 'em next? Take them to Disneyland? Put them in a room with a color TV? Teach them to play baseball?

So yes, it's impossible to "impose" democracy. If people would rather live some other way, that's their collective right.

I have a number of friends in Bulgaria. (Esperanto pen-pals for 30 years whom I once had a chance to meet in person.) You know what they say about the post-Perestroika era?

"For the last fifty years, the Russians insisted that we live in a communist dictatorship. Now, the Americans insist that we live in a capitalist democracy. Why doesn't anybody ask us what we want? Bulgaria was a kingdom for almost a thousand years. It was one of the happiest, most stable, prosperous, and peaceful kingdoms every established. Our king is still alive and has moved back into our country. MAY WE PLEASE HAVE OUR KINGDOM BACK AND THE REST OF YOU CAN JUST LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE?"

Representative democracy is great -- at least I think so because it's the only system of government I've ever lived under. Yet I know full well that democracy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a happy populace. (Ask a few Americans how happy they are right now.) Monarchy, benevolent dictatorship, feudalism, theocracy -- all of these systems can work if the rules and the rulers can find a way to make it work.

And democracy can be an abysmal failure if the people aren't ready for it or don't feel it in their hearts.

On a practical note, it's been suggested that about all an outside power could do for the fictitious state of "Iraq" is to undo the blunder that the British did in the first place: Stop trying to make Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds live together under one government. Break the place up into a Shia nation, a Sunni nation, and a Kurdestan, and let the citizens of each one find their own way to a government they can get along with. And if it's not a democracy, so be it. Right now what those people need is peace, not elections.

Remember WWI and WWII? Wasn't Germany invaded? Than, the US left Germany to become a democracy by itself ? So why is the US not doing the same thing with Iraq? :confused: :rolleyes:

Remember WWI and WWII? Wasn't Germany invaded?

Not in WWI, they were left to fester with the wound of the Treaty of Versailles, and we got Hitler as a result. WWII was a total and complete destruction of German society; Germans unlike Iraqi's had a experience with democracy and at least understood the concepts of democracy and freedom. Also Americans and Germans are basically the same culturally, so they weren't in the mood, or in the position to deny the US her wishes. Iraqi’s and Americans obviously don’t share any of these commonalities.

Than, the US left Germany to become a democracy by itself

The US is still there today actually...

So why is the US not doing the same thing with Iraq?

Because Iraq is not Germany, the comparison is illogical at best.

And democracy can be an abysmal failure if the people aren't ready for it or don't feel it in their hearts.

The Weimar Republic (imposed democracy) is a perfect example of this.

What would the US response be if the Iraqi people vote to put an end to democracy as soon as it is given to them? In such a case, to impose democracy the US would be undermining it.

For the sake of argument (that is, if the US were really imposing democracy), the best response would be to go back in there and impose democracy again, this time with better checks & balances. You could assume that some faction subverted the system to gain control, since the odds of a nation voluntarily relinquishing their freedom are nil. Few people prefer prison.

You could assume that some faction subverted the system to gain control, since the odds of a nation voluntarily relinquishing their freedom are nil. Few people prefer prison.
I think the odds of a genuinely free election in Iraq resulting in a theocracy are substantial.

But in any case, any election organized by a foreign occupation force cannot be a truly free election. The very fact that if they did vote to do away with democracy right away(however unlikely) their vote would not be respected is evidence of that.

In a free election, unless they vote for an electoral college that gives close to equal weight to each of the three major groups, the popular vote will automatically elect members of the largest group, the shia, to government, and the suni and kurds will be left without power.

I think the odds of a genuinely free election in Iraq resulting in a theocracy are substantial.

The democracy imposed would disallow that (we’re talking ideally here). If they voted to implement that, you’d go back in and remove it. Religion cannot be allowed incorporated into a constitution or government. Any semblance of religion in the US democracy is a threat and should be removed. For example, “in God we trust.”

But in any case, any election organized by a foreign occupation force cannot be a truly free election. The very fact that if they did vote to do away with democracy right away(however unlikely) their vote would not be respected is evidence of that.

No, it would be evidence that the democracy was subverted. It’s like believing Saddam that he got 100% of the vote in the “election” just prior to Gulf War II.

It seems contradictory. You disallow religion as part of government whether they like that or not, at first. Eventually they get used to it, see the benefits, and thereafter protect themselves against that. Then the child has grown up and needs no further assistance.

In a free election, unless they vote for an electoral college that gives close to equal weight to each of the three major groups, the popular vote will automatically elect members of the largest group, the shia, to government, and the suni and kurds will be left without power.

That wouldn’t matter as long as religion were not part of the government. All adults would have equal rights and discrimination would not be allowed on irrelevant basis. If the Shia Party votes to create a new sewer system, and the Suni Party and Kurd Party as the minority don’t want that, that’s no different than in any democracy. The majority rules and that’s the best you can do. It still works wonders.

Let me add that democracy, if only to protect itself, has a duty to wipe out dictatorship, which in my book is any system of government based on minority rule. Otherwise the dictatorship festers and languishes and, like North Korea, starts making threats (we have nukes and we’re not afraid to use them!) or begs (famine is destroying us; please help!) or causes other problems (here, take all our degenerates--Cuba's Muriel(sp?) crossing) to prolong its survival.

Undecided,

Yeah, I understand. But imposing democracy is just not possible. Why the US doesn't do something to encourage democracy? Is the US only able to use force? :bugeye:

Why the US doesn't do something to encourage democracy? Is the US only able to use force?

The US should have been actively pursuing a policy of democracy in the ME a long time ago. It’s way too late to come in as the “benevolent invader”. The US is hated by the majority of the population, in the ME and frankly the world. She commands very little respect, and as a result the US tries (in vain) to get respect through fear. The war in Iraq is pretty much a done deal, if democracy is allowed and is allowed to be free; then there will be a Shi'a theocracy in Iraq. Watching Wolf Blitzer’s Last Edition, members of the US gov't have pretty much accepted this, and are saying "we will have to just work with it". The current interim constitution in Iraq is not well liked by just about everyone in the country. The Shi'a especially, it's too secular. Too encourage and propagate democracy in Iraq is also encouraging the restriction of individual rights, and de-secularization. Neither the Kurds, nor the Sunni will accept a Shi'a gov't, and chances are that a civil war will begin. Iraq is one today because the US is there to unify the population, through hatred, and fear. Once the US leaves (if she really does) the situation will get interesting indeed, get your popcorn.

The democracy imposed would disallow that (we’re talking ideally here). If they voted to implement that, you’d go back in and remove it. Religion cannot be allowed incorporated into a constitution or government. Any semblance of religion in the US democracy is a threat and should be removed. For example, “in God we trust.”
I certainly agree with seperation of church and state as an ideal, but if the majority of people in a country want something in their government, and vote for it, and a foreign occupation force prevents them from having it, then that country does not have a democracy.
Claiming that the US should impose its values on the people of Iraq because they're superior is going back to the old idea of the colonial powers invading countries to civlize their populace.


No, it would be evidence that the democracy was subverted. It’s like believing Saddam that he got 100% of the vote in the “election” just prior to Gulf War II.
Not necesarily. Iraqis might vote to get rid of democracy out of anti-western sentiment, or religious conviction.

It seems contradictory. You disallow religion as part of government whether they like that or not, at first. Eventually they get used to it, see the benefits, and thereafter protect themselves against that. Then the child has grown up and needs no further assistance.
What it comes down to is that in a democracy, the people are the final word, and this can never be true if it is imposed by an occupying army.

jps – What I’m talking about is along the lines of the Stockholm syndrome. That’s like the Patty Hearst case, where someone is abused or oppressed to the point where they depend upon their abuser. Get them away from the abuser and they scream to go back. Keep them away for a few months and they thank you for rescuing them. In any dictatorship the people can be assumed to be under this spell. It can be so ingrained that it might take a generation to winnow it out of the majority.

The bottom line is, reasonable people prefer neither prison nor religious persecution. So if they vote for that, you have to assume they are not being reasonable. And even if they pass every reasonability test, democracy still cannot afford nations full of such people to exist (some of the their problems that spill over to democracy I listed above). They must be forced to change. It's like forcing kids to go to school so they don't become thugs or beggars. I agree that being so forced makes it not a democracy. But I think the odds of it needing to be so forced beyond a generation are nil.

America's motivations are bordering upon irrelevant when considering the opportunity the Iraqi people now have to implement democracy. Compared to when they were under the bloody fist of Saddam's Baathist regime, that is. But you are correct, one cannot impose democracy. Why would one want to impose any political system upon a population who do not wish it?

f

For the reasons I gave above. Assuming there exists a nation of people who prefer dictatorship (and I doubt that), dictatorships don’t mind their own business. Their problems adversely affect the rest of the world.

Remember WWI and WWII? Wasn't Germany invaded? Than, the US left Germany to become a democracy by itself ? So why is the US not doing the same thing with Iraq? :confused: :rolleyes:

Wasn't germany already a democratic republic before the americans came? Yes, of course, Hitler had turned it into a dictatorship, but there was some kind of tradition of democracy.

Wasn't germany already a democratic republic before the americans came? Yes, of course, Hitler had turned it into a dictatorship, but there was some kind of tradition of democracy.
Welll.... remember the Cold War? Wasn't West Germany democratic and free? I mean... people would walk naked in the parks... :D

jps – What I’m talking about is along the lines of the Stockholm syndrome. That’s like the Patty Hearst case, where someone is abused or oppressed to the point where they depend upon their abuser. Get them away from the abuser and they scream to go back. Keep them away for a few months and they thank you for rescuing them. In any dictatorship the people can be assumed to be under this spell. It can be so ingrained that it might take a generation to winnow it out of the majority.

The bottom line is, reasonable people prefer neither prison nor religious persecution. So if they vote for that, you have to assume they are not being reasonable. And even if they pass every reasonability test, democracy still cannot afford nations full of such people to exist (some of the their problems that spill over to democracy I listed above). They must be forced to change. It's like forcing kids to go to school so they don't become thugs or beggars. I agree that being so forced makes it not a democracy. But I think the odds of it needing to be so forced beyond a generation are nil.
Yeah, that makes sense to me to a point. In a case where an entire populace is not of sound mind, then a democracy will not result in sound government. However, whether postive or negative, a government installed by an outside force cannot be democratic as long as that outside force enforces the results.

This is all theoretical of course, as the US government isn't really interested in installing a democracy in Iraq.

Edit:
I don't think the stockholm syndrome issue you described serves as a justification for invading countries to liberate them. I still can't think of a democracy that has been created by a foreign occupation force.
The invasion is what creates the stockholm syndrome effect. I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, Saddam's popularity in Iraq is now the highest its been in a decade.

filter: . . . the opportunity the Iraqi people now have to implement democracy . . . Why would one want to impose any political system upon a population who do not wish it?

The Iraqi have a unique opportunity to leapfrog into the 21st century riding the back of the US, but unfortunately their religion, politics, and tribal prejudices blind them, so they can't see the big picture.

in reference to the title of this forum... surely democracy cant be imposed if the people do not let it, for then it is still dictatorship, except with ballots instead of beatings.

Logically Unsound - How do you know they won't let democracy be imposed until you get rid of the dictator? Until their dictator loses power you cannot know what the people want. You have to impose a ballot or at least take an unbiased poll just to find out what they want. It's unrealistic to think you can depose the dictator and then just leave to see what the people create in the vacuum. In that case a new dictator will likely arise and not necessarily because the people want that.

I still can't think of a democracy that has been created by a foreign occupation force.

How about Germany and Japan? They are still puppets but it's doubtful they'd go back to dictatorship if the US left.

How about Germany and Japan? They are still puppets but it's doubtful they'd go back to dictatorship if the US left.
True. In Germany, democracy wasn't a new thing, but Japan could be an example. The exception that proves the rule I suppose.

The Iraqi have a unique opportunity to leapfrog into the 21st century riding the back of the US, but unfortunately their religion, politics, and tribal prejudices blind them, so they can't see the big picture.Aren't you begging the question that started this whole thread? Is it possible for any society to "leapfrog" into an era that it hasn't achieved naturally, by being dragged, pushed, kicked, or otherwise forced by another society? That's what we're arguing here.

The Buddhist monks that China sent out into its neighboring lands are perhaps the only example of this technique working and their success is instructive. There were very few of them, they came in absolute peace, they limited their work to teaching and they limited their disciples to those who volunteered, and they were extremely patient. The adoption of Buddhist-Chinese culture by the Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese took centuries.

What we're trying to do is make changes in Iraqi culture that are far greater than those made by the Chinese neighbors. We're trying to do it within a single generation. We're trying to do it by force rather than education. We're trying to do it by overwhelming the country with our own people. We're sending horny, racist, beer-guzzling, trigger-happy soldiers with families they miss back home instead of monks. And standing behind it all is the unholy, rapacious combination of Dick Cheney and the Halliburton company, who don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people but just want to make a lot of money in the process.

This sounds like the way every European nation has tried to "elevate" every society they've ever encountered, from the Cherokee to the Tutsi to the Incas to the Hindus to the Maori. It has never worked and it never will.

Iraq was already one of the most technologically advanced states in the middle east, wasn't it? There are a lot of primitive tribal communities, but I doubt if any new government will change that. The iraqi's were educated and nonfundamentalist. The danger is that instead of leapfrogging forward, they will end up leapfrogging backwards. If the fundies have their way, sharia law would be imposed and Iraq reduced to the level of surrounding states. The children would be "educated" by memorizing the Qu'ran.

I can't say whether or not our attempt to impose democracy will succeed or fail. I fear we don't really have the knowledge of what the average Iraqis actually think about the situation. Do they want democracy? Do they want the US or the UN or whoever to keep the fundies from taking control? Do they want to defend themselves against fundamentalism? Do they want fundamentalism to succeed? Only time will tell. As it has always been, we must continue to walk the edge of the sword.

I can say this, the way to impress the Iraqis is not by torturing and humiliating them. It is not by taking advantage of their weakness to fill the pockets of rich men. It is not by not taking them seriously and disallowing their wishes in the matter. By doing these things, we lose what credibility we have to begin with. We lessen ourselves in, not only the eyes of the Iraqis, but the eyes of the world.

I truly hope that Iraq will become a beacon of freedom and justice in the Middle East. But things certainly seem grim.

To tell you the truth, I am more concerned over the fate of Afghanistan. It's been a longer time since we have conquered them, and there is almost no coverage of the events taking place there. Why isn't there a deadline imposed on handing power back to the Afghan people? Is there a democracy to be built for them? Remember the promises that we would not abandon them as we abandoned them after the end of the cold war? Americans are still there, but the American people are not interested. They've got their heads full of Iraq. We must beware becoming forgetful conquerors. Forgetfulness might even be applied to our own freedoms in time.

The need to convert the entire populus of Iraq to democracy is a myth.

The leaders of Iraq represent the people of Iraq. They have the power to convert Iraq to whatever form of government they wish.

Unfortunately, there are few Iraqi leaders. Power is left to fundamentalist clerics who have their own Islamic agenda at the expense of the Iraqi people.

Nothing should ever be imposed upon anyone. If the people of Iraq want a democracy, it should be their choice and not the choice of others. If it is imposed, it is no longer a democracy but a form of dictatorship.

Unfortunately, there are few Iraqi leaders.

There are no Iraqi leaders. None have been elected yet.

If the people of Iraq want a democracy, it should be their choice and not the choice of others.

Problem is, they don’t have a choice as long as they have dictatorship. They don’t get to choose until democracy is imposed. It’s a catch-22.

Apparently here's what some of you would say about a hostage situation: "The need to free hostages is a myth. The abductors represent the hostages. They have the power to free the hostages if they wish. If the hostages want to be free it should be their choice and not the choice of others."

Leaders are born, not elected or appointed. Leadership is a proven ability, as measured by social power, i.e. the number of people who will follow of their own accord or otherwise.

In an election people appoint one or more officials from the slate of willing candidates.

Nope. The leader you describe is one of whom the populace is afraid. That’s not leadership but rather a mass hostage situation. It is obvious that in the most prosperous societies the populace is the boss of the leader. In a most-ruthless-rules world you would not even have the computer on which you read this. It wouldn't have been created.

Iraq was already one of the most technologically advanced states in the middle east, wasn't it? There are a lot of primitive tribal communities, but I doubt if any new government will change that. The iraqi's were educated and nonfundamentalist. The danger is that instead of leapfrogging forward, they will end up leapfrogging backwards. If the fundies have their way, sharia law would be imposed and Iraq reduced to the level of surrounding states. The children would be "educated" by memorizing the Qu'ran.

All the power to ya! I couldn’t agree more, Iraq’s population is not idiotic or even simpleminded. The problem in the Middle East that most people don’t even realize is that much of population of the ME was born in the 80’s and 90’s creating a huge “surplus” (very dehumanizing term I know) population. Iran for instance btwn the revolution of 1979 and today had a population growth of 54%*, Iraq had a population explosion as well up to 50%*, and Saudi Arabia (which has the highest population growth in the region if not the world!) with a population increase of 37%*. These states economies have not grown fast enough to maintain this population growth. These states are in the midst of the population trap; in which too many babies are being born yet not enough people are dying. The relative educational levels in Iraq have invariably gone down, especially with the financial crisis of the 90’s due to sanctions. Iraq was the regions most socially, and economically progressive states. Saddam was a bad man, but at least he was secular and hated the same people the US hated. With a modern democratic movement in Iraq, the Shi’a majority will win power. They represent 60% of the population; if they don’t win the election will be fraudulent. With such a large young, poor, and undereducated population they are easily manipulated and are prone to much more radical political ideas. Democracy in a region where the young, unemployed can vote creates the problems we encountered in the 1932 German general election, the chances for “real change” are in the winds.

Undecided: Sadly, I have to agree with your assessment.

Only a secular minded popular leader can save Iraq from becoming a religious fundamentalist state. With the lack of Iraqi popular support for the US, and the latest international public relations fiascos, Bush can no longer afford politically to "stay the course".

Just a brief note as to the Germany/Japan thing. Both countries willingly imposed democratic forms of governments before becoming dictatorships. Japan through the Meiji reformation and becoming Western and all, already planted the roots of representative government, but the military leaders took it back in the 20's. Germany did have this infatuation for the strong man leader, but self imposed democracy before the armistice in WWI to help appease the Americans, and so the spiral begins.

I'm new and don't have a ton of time to read up on these as they're going on, but damn there's a lot i'd like to post on. Firstly, I don't think that it's in the United States of America's job description to impose democracy on anybody. Consider the following: unrepresentative electoral system, lowest voter turnout in any Western nation, a two party state which offers no clear and distinct 'choice', corporate elections, the country is increasingly being run by judges, CEOs, and religious leaders. Is this really who you want to be taking lessons from?

As per the more broader question of imposing democracy in Iraq, it simply cannot be done. Legitimacy is something i've seen little mention of thus far in this discussion, yet it IS the cornerstone of all democratic society (one that is being ever more eroded in the US, but thats another topic). The leaders on the Iraqi governing council don't have legitimacy due to their being appointed. That notion alone means that the general population won't willingly submit to anything they say, because they never gave them the authority to do so. You can't install a government in which the people feel obligated to obey in which the citizen body has not consented to.

My question to ask from here though, is why do you think the US feels compelled to export their 'liberal' democracy (liberal being the reason it fails, you can export democracy, but never liberal democracy)?

Do you believe the US feels it is their 'duty' to the world?
Is it because it has the largest economy, or subsequent military?
Personally, I believe it's because nobody else will.

What we really need isn't world peace, it isn't economic egalitarianism. It's a balance of power, pure and simple. It'll be interesting to see who tips the scales first, the united Europe, or China.

what are you doing?
we're liberating you.
but we don't need to be liberated.
of course you do, you're just brainwashed.
that is worthless. and if no reasonable person would vote for prison, then why does the u.s. still have a justice system? :rolleyes:

Legitimacy is something i've seen little mention of thus far in this discussion, yet it IS the cornerstone of all democratic society
well played! mad props. :D

i think the main problem the untied states has is the belief that their system is the answer. perhaps you all are brainwashed. ever considered that?

i would think eu, except these are countries with varying beliefs about how the government should operate [i.e. chirac's fronte nationale is not exactly blair's labour party] and a history of conflicts between them. besides, china has oodles of expendable workers. :D

My question to ask from here though, is why do you think the US feels compelled to export their 'liberal' democracy (liberal being the reason it fails, you can export democracy, but never liberal democracy)?

It was given at the top of this thread that we’re talking about an ideal here and not about anything the US is doing. The US hasn’t exported democracy in my lifetime. It replaced Saddam with another dictator, Bush.

Despotic, Nice post!
Globalization will bring about a stronger EU and Asian block in the foreseeable future. But they probably will be smart enough to leave the global police work to the US. Do you think that a new military alignment will also follow?

Well in order to suggest if a new military order is on deck, you need to see if the reigning champ can be dethroned. Lets face it, nobody can beat the US military-industrial complex. The best we can hope for is having significantly larger players being able to meet the US so they aren't free to do whatever they want. It's basically Keenan's theory of containment, but instead of working against the USSR, it needs to work against the USA.

I'm presonally really interested in the EU and how it's developing. With how it's current expansion now encompasses I believe 25 countries, with the new members all pretty poor, it'll be a real test to see if international organization can work to benefit the nations of those involved. In Europe it is much easier to accomplish however, because of fairly equal nations in size and economies comprising of the core of nations, that way seat allocations aren't skewed dramtically. Consider the same situation if a North American Parliament were to be established? Canada 30 mil population, USA 300 mil. Hmm, way to enslave yourself to the US. Anyway, back to the topic. If the EU can establish a stable centralized economy for Europe (well en route) and if they can establish a type of international permanent armed force in which all member states contribute and subjugate themselves to, I think international policing will actually become a possibility. It's not now.

By a permanent international force (this idea can be extended to the UN, just more unlikely) I mean one in which all member countries supply voluntary troops, countries can supply food, clothing, medical equipment, shipyards, airfields, training bases, a whole armed force created in co-operative. Since there would be a clear constitution governing the force, it's not subject to the self-interested nations like current policing efforts are now, but to the common will of the representatives of all those countries involved in the EU Parliament. The only problem is that countries would be forfeitting a portion of their soveringity (sp?). Too idealistic, I'm aware, but hey, the times they are a changin'

With how it's current expansion now encompasses I believe 25 countries, with the new members all pretty poor, it'll be a real test to see if international organization can work to benefit the nations of those involved.

If Norway finally decides to get in on the EU, they'll have some major wealth on their sides.

If Norway finally decides to get in on the EU, they'll have some major wealth on their sides.

That doesn't change the distribution of the wealth. Unless you go in and take money, jobs, and infrastructure from Norway and give it to say, Hungary, that's a pretty arbitrary point. I was just making the point that it would become a lot more of a challenge for the EU because it now has these new developmental problems.

We have 50 States, all different, trying to work together and boy is it a mad house.
the EU is 25 COUNTRIES, all different, trying to work together and its a Charlie Foxtrot.

1984 all over again

America's motivations are bordering upon irrelevant when considering the opportunity the Iraqi people now have to implement democracy. Compared to when they were under the bloody fist of Saddam's Baathist regime, that is. But you are correct, one cannot impose democracy. Why would one want to impose any political system upon a population who do not wish it?

f

Oh and they all told you this , so you know this to be true.

LMAO.