Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
America isn't a democracy, so it's moot. "We" are against people using the government towards selfish ends. We are against killing of innocent people, and the needless endangerment of our friends and family who choose to serve our country in the armed forces. The mistake is automaticlly asuming that democracy is the right government for Iraq right now. In 50 years, it may be perfect for them, but we simply don't know. All I know is that America decided that Iraq would be a democracy.
Bush is anti-abortion, and I agree with him whole heartedly on that. Therefore, I do not automatically take the opposite side.
I think that a true democracy can work really well. Canada is doing alright.
|
If America isn't a "true democracy", then neither is Canada. Both would be termed republics, more accurately. But the thread is about 'forcing democracy" not forcing republics. In common usage, democracy is usually used to term any government where the people have a say in either who represents them or what laws are put into place. In that sense, both America and Canada are democracies.
And I really don't understand people saying that X country isn't ready for democracy. Are people in Iraq not smart enough to rule themselves? Or does the Iraqi disposition somehow lead itself to domination? Again, people are essentially saying that it's not always best for a country to have self-rule.