just fierce and on target!
Doesn't democracy have to arise from the people themselves? http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/18.html I feel a tremendous sense of weariness as I start in on this argument, because I have made it so many times before. Even a year ago I couldn't believe that I had to work that hard to get people to understand something I thought ought to be intuitively obvious. I've never really understood why people believed that it was possible to bring democracy to Iraq by invading it.
Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people, right? So doesn't that mean that by definition it is impossible to 'bring' democracy with you to someone else's country? Doesn't democracy have to arise from the people themselves? I mean, taking your army to someone else's country and then imposing a government on the people there whether they want it or not is something that unfortunately happens pretty often; but 'democracy' isn't really the right word for that kind of thing. Normally we refer to that as 'imperialism,' or 'conquest,' or something similar.
Bringing democracy to Iraq was never supposed to be the primary rationale for the war; it was an ex post facto justification cooked up to replace the WMD pretext. Unfortunately it has proved to be a lot more durable than the WMD pretext. That's partly because it plays perfectly to our basic desire to see ourselves as the good guys. This is a fundamental human need and we're not the only nation that has led itself into danger, deceit, and downright dementia by trying to believe that we are really doing good when in fact we are doing terrible harm.