The Chinese do the same thing. Doesn't mean they have a democracy.
Don't make the common mistake amongst critics in assuming that all democracy looks the same. They do not. China hasn't Western style democracy. Europe doesn't have American style democracy. Iraq's democracy occurred before your very eyes. They voted and they got what they wanted. At this point, I just gotta call you a hater.
That's a remarkably misguided and ethnocentric statement. Arabs vote all the time.
Um....no Winston. You avoided the words you read. I stated that Iraqis, for the first time in Arab history, voted on the laws that would govern them. This is a historical fact. And no, Arabs don't vote "all the time." It depends on what Arab government we are talking about and definately on what limitations they have to make a difference. Iraq stands alone in their fresh start. Nowhere in their entire history have Arabs ever been a part of creating their own laws through the vote. Even our Declaration of Independence came from an elite few in a room that had our interests at heart.
The economic issues have to do with the sanctions and the war. The fact that we've yet to establish an effective puppet has to do with the efforts of the insurgents.
Once again, Winston, you avoided the words you read. I stated that "the economic issues of Iraq have nothing to do with installing Cold War dictators." Economic issues always have a seat at the table and certainly had its role with Iraq, but it had nothing to do with installing a dictator successor for Hussein. We did not establish a dictator puppet because we do not live within the Cold War world anymore. It has been proven that we cannot sustain business relationships with dictators who die or may be overthrown or may invade his neighbors who are also our allies. Only a democracy with the rule of law as its guide can sustain true stability. And the fact that it is best for the people is a bonus. If you wish to forecast an unlikely future and call it a fact than perhaps you should back off the keyboard and breath it out. Democracy was the goal from the very beginning before the insurgent movement. Insurgents wanted to push out Americans, and make Iraq empowered by Sunni again. This is why the insurgency was all Sunni until the Shia developed the need to protect themselves from them years later. The insurgency failed to re-capture a Sunni Iraq or push us out. And when the Sunni showed up at the last voting scenario, they smeared it in every radical's face and Sunni government in the region.
We always support rebels who defy tyrants? Tell that to the Iranians who lived under the Shah. Or to the people of El Salvador, Guatemala, East Timor, etc., etc.
Oh, the literal argument. OK, we have not "aaaaalwaaaays" supported rebels for democracy. We do have exceptions. (Coincidentally, all that you mentioned were Cold War sins by the way,which is what you have argued against me). But in the less literal sense, which was the obvious intent, we have always supported rebels and movements under tyrants. This goes back to the Spanish-American War all the way up to today's Iran.
By the way, the Iranians that lived under the Shah agree that life was far better than life under Khomeini. They were far better off than what was next. He was no where near the "tyrant" Western critics need him to be. But given that all of our Cold War dictators merely targetted Soviet supporters and such, who cares? It was a different time. But as much as you obviously need to criticize this activity, why would you insist that installing a democracy to replace "our" last Cold War dictator is wrong as well?
True, if it weren't for those sentiments we probably would have been involved sooner. The fact remains that Germany tried to avoid war with the US and FDR did everything he could to get us involved despite public opinion. That's history for you.
Yeah.....so what? Isolationalism was the point.
