Presidential Race

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"]I've just decided to make a thread about the presidential hopefuls, which could be combined with my other thread, but I'll leave that up to the mods to decide.

It doesn't really perplex me, because usually young adults/teenagers don't actively participate in politics and don't affect polls or fund raising, but it's interesting that Hilary Clinton is the clear front-runner for the Democratic race for the party nomination while most everyone I've met just hates her, even self-labeled democrats.

In the Stephen Colbert thread someone argued that her health care wasn't as good as Edwards and that she accepts money from lobbyists.

Firstly, saying a politician is influenced by lobbyists is like saying the sky is blue. Well, duh. Special interest groups and lobbyists have influence on any presidential hopeful who is trying to raise money for a multi-million campaign. The health care plan I truly don't the details about, but I really think it's just become a trend to hate Hilary Clinton and blame her for mooching off her husband's legacy (because no one else would do this and she's just so weak at politics already :rolleyes:). I don't support Clinton, but the trend is irritating.

But then again, Hilary's getting huge support over anyone else regardless of what teenagers think. It could end up like Howard Dean, but nothing is for sure. Obama is just dropping in polls, I guess because people focus on his inexperience (he's losing the black voters, which is just [i]bad[/i], lol).

The other interesting aspect of this presidential nomination race if the scramble for the primary/caucus dates. New Hampshire and Iowa are getting their panties in a bunch, and there's a possibility that a primary or caucus as early as January could happen. Of course having such an early primary/caucus just raises the stakes higher and makes the race more focused on fund raising and ridiculously long. (Not to mention the domino effect it may have on other states.)

Personally I think America's presidential campaigns are just way over the top. Some countries' campaigning times last for about two months, whereas ours is about a year and demands millions and millions of dollars. Clean election laws are never taken advantage of (because I guess they don't really have an advantage when compared to private donations) except in Congressional campaigns, and then again that's a small handful.

Lastly, I'm loving Ron Paul's rise in popularity right now. [spoiler]VOTE FOR RON PAUL :-D[/spoiler] I've leaned a lot towards being a Libertarian lately, and since Paul is one, I've looked into what his stances are. I agree with his ideas, in general, and I think he's only running as a Republican because it was his best shot at getting the nomination. I'm pretty sure he was the only Republican candidate that fully supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which was just funny to watch at the Republican debate.

He has the greatest internet popularity, I think, because people on the internet mostly happen to be Libertarian lol. He beats most other candidates in YouTube popularity and search term. [/font]

[James]

[color=#606060]I used to be very engaged with American politics despite being Australian myself.

I find the American system really interesting. And although I still believe I know more about American politics than many (including some Americans), I must admit that I haven't followed this year's primaries very closely at all.

I'm not really sure why. Other than a general lack of time, I think another reason is that I just haven't found the discussion/debate terribly interesting this time around.

The last American election sort of frustrated me because I felt that John Kerry wasn't the best pick (or even the most obvious choice) for Democratic nomination. I almost felt, in the beginning, that the Democrats had set themselves up to fail. I wanted better for them.

This time around I just don't know. I don't have enough knowledge about the Democratic candidates.

I can only say that every time Barack Obama speaks he comes across as a potentially great leader. Having said that, I don't know the detail of his policies.

I don't mind Hillary Clinton but she is a very stereotypical politician - she's an expert strategist and it is difficult to know what she genuinely believes. She is very much a career politician and I think it shows. Having said that, she's an undeniably intelligent woman and a very formidable opponent.

Australia is having its federal elections in November this year, so a lot is going on right now. I am loving our election campaign - I think it'll be a real cliffhanger this year. :catgirl: [/color]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I think the 2008 Election isn't really as exciting as 2004's, because Kerry vs. Bush was more high stakes and in between the incumbent's two terms, but this election is pretty important to me now that I've become more knowledgable about politics and government.

I hate the part of America that thinks we should be in charge of enforcing 'democracy' around the world, when it's clearly something that can't be instilled into a country. It's such a huge issue with me, and with the "war on terrorism" (ugh) I will be hugely disappointed in a Republican candidate other then Ron Paul is chosen. The only candidate I really like already has minimal chances- he's running as Republican and he's not a forerunner, which is just disappointing.[/font]

[James]

[color=#606060]Yeah, I agree with you that this election isn't as high-stakes or as interesting as the 2004 election.

In terms of "enforcing democracy" I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you are referring to Iraq, I'd just point out that prior to Saddam Hussein's regime coming to power, Iraq actually had a democratic parliamentary system.

As far as I know, the current model being used in Iraq is largely similar to the pre-Saddam system. My understanding was that Iraq used to have a unicameral parliament (in other words, a house of reps without a senate).

The only real difference now is that they are trying to create an executive branch which contains members from each ethnic group in the country. I suppose you could say it's a form of affirmative action.

I don't think this was ever done before in Iraq, but it's similar to what some countries do in their parliaments.

For instance, in Australia, we do have a rule about having at least one seat in the House occupied by an aboriginal Australian.

As for Republican candidates go, I really know nothing about the current lineup (other than Guiliani).[/color]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]Clinton has momentum and generous face time. I have the opinion that it is not her issues that turn people off usually. I hear some people who think her platform is too centrist, or that she is playing to republican angles too much. The majority of the time people simply just don't like her. It's either her personality they hate, her using Bill's spotlight, and sometimes it's the concept of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton that worries people.

Barack Obama is a really charismatic guy. He is youthful, and inexperienced. I understand worries about his inexperience. America has many issues right now that need to be sorted out one way or another, and an inexperienced president might not be able to handle it. I thought when he said that he would personally go and talk to other countries' leaders was actually a positive idea. I don't think the current status quo is necessarily getting America closer to any sort of agreement with Iran. It won't dramatically solve diplomatic problems, but it would be a nice overture and a move in the right direction.

I've never understood Edwards always being third. I consider him to be a strong all around candidate for the Democrats. He doesn't polarize the electorate as Clinton does or appear like a greenhorn as Obama does. I think he would do very well against any republican contenders, and would be at least an above average president. I doubt America could do much worse than Bush.

Clinton is a juggernaut. The Howard Dean comparison could be apt, but I think that was more of an accident (and abuse of a directional microphone).

Giuliani would be tolerable as president. I have liberal views socially so none of the republican candidates are ideal to me, but I think he would be a powerful candidate on a national level and could duke it out with the democratic challenger evenly. The lovable I-didn't-vote-for-him governor of Texas (Rick Perry) has endorsed him even though he has pro-choice leanings about abortion. If Republicans can stomach the horrible concept of civil rights, I think he could come out on top.

I don't know much about Romney or Thompson. I do know about Ron Paul since he is from Texas and I see Ron Paul stuff up across town already (early isn't it?). I think he is a pretty unique candidate to come out of the Republican party. I enjoy some of his views, but I don't know about his chances.

I don't know about anyones chances. The Republican field is crowded with could bes. Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani seem to be the main contenders.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[quote name='James'][COLOR=#606060]I think another reason is that I just haven't found the discussion/debate terribly interesting this time around.[/COLOR][/quote]

What debates? Right now, the two big talking points for America's political hacks are some WWI era Armenian genocide declaration...thing...and trying to figure out what to do with Larry Craig, the Republican ***.

It's a sad, sad day in American politics when WWI and men's room sex are dominating discussion.

For the upcoming election, we're screwed either way. Best I've heard out of any candidates' mouth is...probably what Obama would like to do in his first year of office (unconditional direct talks with certain world leaders) Cause in all honesty, it's the best idea anyone's had. These problem leaders are neither stupid nor crazy. In fact, they know how to work the crowd, which I give them major props for.

[James]

[quote]I've never understand Edwards always being third. I consider him to be a strong all around candidate for the Democrats. He doesn't polarize the electorate as Clinton does or appear like a greenhorn as Obama does. I think he would do very well against any republican contenders, and would be at least an above average president. I doubt America could do much worse than Bush.
[/quote]

[color=#606060]I've wondered about that too, since I followed Edwards closely in the last election.

My only thought is that perhaps he's simply too vanilla or something - too quiet, too pleasant...too something. Maybe he doesn't come across strongly enough.

Clinton annoys many, but she speaks with strength and conviction - she knows how to come across as a potential leader. Edwards often seems a bit quieter and he sometimes seems to fade into the background a little.

I could be totally wrong there, but I get the impression that a lot of people view him as being a bit lacking in substance (either rightly or wrongly). Either that, or people don't seem to view him as leadership material.[/color]

[quote]What debates? Right now, the two big talking points for America's political hacks are some WWI era Armenian genocide declaration...thing...and trying to figure out what to do with Larry Craig, the Republican ***.
[/quote]

[color=#606060]Well that's the thing. Most of the issues are stale and/or misrepresented. Either that or they just aren't discussed at all.

It's just boring and lacks substance. That's probably one reason why I haven't bothered to tune in very much.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[quote name='James'][COLOR=#606060]Most of the issues are stale and/or misrepresented. Either that or they just aren't discussed at all.[/COLOR][/quote]

Have some from Column A, try all of Column B.

[CENTER][URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1209/geniemu4.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[/CENTER]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]Lastly, I'm loving Ron Paul's rise in popularity right now. [spoiler]VOTE FOR RON PAUL :-D[/spoiler] I've leaned a lot towards being a Libertarian lately, and since Paul is one, I've looked into what his stances are. I agree with his ideas, in general, and I think he's only running as a Republican because it was his best shot at getting the nomination. I'm pretty sure he was the only Republican candidate that fully supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which was just funny to watch at the Republican debate.

He has the greatest internet popularity, I think, because people on the internet mostly happen to be Libertarian lol. He beats most other candidates in YouTube popularity and search term. [/font][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]What "rise in popularity" do you speak of? Has his support broken 5%?

To be frank, the biggest thing that turned me away from Paul was his desire to abolish all bureaus that aren't expressly outlined in the Constitution. His ideals are great, you know, uphold the Constitution, but he's taking it to a ridiculous extent.

I more support Barack Obama. Yes, he is experienced, and yes he is young, but I don't see these as negatives. Meeting with rogue states? Excellent. It's not like the silent treatment actually solves anything in the real world... we need to get away from that Bush Doctrine. Taking nuclear weapons off the table? Great. Do I honestly need to say why? He opposed the Iraq War from the start, which shows to me a strong foresight and lucidity. Why should I want people who were on the war drum just a few years ago in the white house?

I don't hate Hillary. I've always tried to figure out why, and people have given me "I don't know, I just get that vibe from her". I would more say that I'm frustrated she uses his husband's accomplishments and political experience to say "Look, I'm experienced too!" but I guess that's part of the game. To her credit, she's an excellent debater.

Edwards seems to be the candidate people go to when they're too afraid of a black/inexperienced candidate or a woman candidate, which ends up being a fair amount of Southern/Midwestern Democrats.

I'll vote for Obama, but if I had to guess, I'd say a Hillary/Edwards ticket is in the works.[/font]

[eleanor]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]
In terms of "enforcing democracy" I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you are referring to Iraq, I'd just point out that prior to Saddam Hussein's regime coming to power, Iraq actually had a democratic parliamentary system.

As far as I know, the current model being used in Iraq is largely similar to the pre-Saddam system. My understanding was that Iraq used to have a unicameral parliament (in other words, a house of reps without a senate).

The only real difference now is that they are trying to create an executive branch which contains members from each ethnic group in the country. I suppose you could say it's a form of affirmative action.
[/color][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Even if the Iraqi government was democratic before Hussein, it doesn't discount the fact that a large part of Bush's insistence for the war in Iraq was to spread democracy to the world. Simply, there is a difference between liberal and illiberal democracy, and voting does not equal democracy. Forcing democracy onto other countries can (and have, in cases such as Indonesia, India, Venezuela, etc.) does not ensure that the people of those countries are allowed civil and constitutional rights.Elected governments that claim to represent people use democracy as a ruse for autocracies, and infringe upon the rights of other ?elements in society?, either by taking control of other governments branches or private/third-party businesses and groups.

I don't my articles about democracy in Iraq with me, but just because the US has gone in and given the Iraq people the ability to vote doesn't mean they're a liberal democracy. [/font]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]What "rise in popularity" do you speak of? Has his support broken 5%?

I more support Barack Obama. Yes, he is experienced, and yes he is young, but I don't see these as negatives. Meeting with rogue states? Excellent. It's not like the silent treatment actually solves anything in the real world... we need to get away from that Bush Doctrine. Taking nuclear weapons off the table? Great. Do I honestly need to say why? He opposed the Iraq War from the start, which shows to me a strong foresight and lucidity. Why should I want people who were on the war drum just a few years ago in the white house?

[/font][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Paul surprised people with this 5 million in third quarter fund raising, which yeah, is tiny compared to other candidates' funds, but he's at least noticeable now. More people know about him, and his internet presence is booming. Of course internet popularity is never a good indicator of who will win, but at least he's getting noticed. He's the best Republican candidate so far; I don't care that he's not as popular as Giuliani or Thompson. People who vote based on who they think has the greatest chance aren't doing America a favor. If no one had that mindset, different people would win.

And Obama, I don't really know much about, but he has been slipping lately. The focus is more on Hilary now, and whether she'll continue her lead.[/font]

[Justin]

I pretty much hate Bush. I know that's the default political stance on him for most people in the world; but perhaps some people here will get the significance of that statement when spoken by me.

That said, I'm about 87% sure that we're going to war with Iran. Just like it was with Iraq. We're fighting in Afghanistan already, then you start hearing this **** about invading Iraq, for whatever reason, and the next thing you know, we're in Iraq.

I have a feeling we're going to turn around in six months and find ourselves fighting a three-fronted war against the Muslim world.

Notice I didn't say against terror. [i]You can't fight fear.[/i] And thusly, you can't fight terrorism. Terrorism isn't a rogue nation. It isn't a fascist political party performing a coup over a stable democratic state. It's a tactic for demoralizing your enemy.

Should America defend herself? Yes. Should we root out terrorists wherever they breed? No. We'd be in every country on the globe. Even our own. So, for the life of me, I can't understand why we're starting a campaign against all the Muslim states with anti-American sentiments.

And the fact the Bush is riding roughshod over the will of the people...God, help us. I'm constantly hearing this cliche: "Freedom isn't free." Your goddamn right it's not. But I present to you a new thought: "Freedom is fragile."

When the time comes for Americans(or anyone) to defend their national and personal liberty, they should. But they must also remember to take great care when choosing the people entrusted with their freedom. And...should they have made a mistake in choosing those caretakers...be prepared to remove that mantle, and rip that pedestal from beneath their feet.

Many Americans see political activism as a 'dangerous and subversive activity.' At the very least, most of us see political activists as weirdos. And I'm not saying to hit the streets for every injustice or malpractice you think you see. But damn it...have some patriotism. Not for the doof in charge, but for America and what she's supposed to reflect. A country led by conscience. A country that gives everyone a square deal.

Will we ever achieve that? Hell no. But that's the beauty of perfection. It's not a line on one side of which we stand, calling for the rest of the degenerate world to join us. Perfection is a goal. One no man, people, or nation will ever achieve, but should always strive for.

-Justin

[James]

[quote]Even if the Iraqi government was democratic before Hussein, it doesn't discount the fact that a large part of Bush's insistence for the war in Iraq was to spread democracy to the world. Simply, there is a difference between liberal and illiberal democracy, and voting does not equal democracy. Forcing democracy onto other countries can (and have, in cases such as Indonesia, India, Venezuela, etc.) does not ensure that the people of those countries are allowed civil and constitutional rights.Elected governments that claim to represent people use democracy as a ruse for autocracies, and infringe upon the rights of other “elements in society”, either by taking control of other governments branches or private/third-party businesses and groups.

I don't my articles about democracy in Iraq with me, but just because the US has gone in and given the Iraq people the ability to vote doesn't mean they're a liberal democracy.
[/quote]

[color=#606060]It isn't really "forced" democracy though. This is evidenced by the massive turn out for various elections - people not only wanted to vote, but they wanted their original democracy back.

In terms of civil rights and such, I'd agree with you to some extent - but this doesn't really have anything to do with the American or British governments. It's ultimately up to the Iraqi parliament to make decisions about civil liberties and such (speaking of which, Iraq's new constitution provides significantly more freedoms than the prior version did). There have been a number of legislative changes in that area, but of course it's an ongoing process.

In terms of Indonesia - a subject I am very familiar with - I think it's important to note that Indonesia has never had "real" democracy, unlike Iraq.

When Indonesia became democratic (of its own will), the problem was simply lack of education and knowledge about how to operate democratic institutions.

At best you could say that the country is still learning and finding its feet. Democracy probably does not come easy to a country that has never experienced it before - and I don't mean this on an ideological level, I mean it on a functional level.

I certainly can list a myriad of problems with the Iraq conflict, but the vast majority of people misunderstand a lot of the specifics about the country itself and the situation surrounding the current political climate. The same was true during World War II, when it took a change of government for Britain to understand the true nature of its relationship with Nazi Germany.[/color]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I mean 'forced' democracy as in democracy is just instated into a country. Liberal democracy isn't something that can just be put into power, even if a country has one before. There's a process to building up any type of government. Sometimes it might work, but you can't expect voting to suddenly create secure constitutional rights or actually liberal democracy. I think it's important that a [i]direct[/i] predecent of pluralism or opposing parties needs to be present; while Iraq may have had a democratic government before Saddam doesn't matter, because it was [i]before[/i] Saddam's reign. You still can't really just jump into a new form of government, epsecially when it's being pushed by a 200-year-old democratic nation that thinks democracy is just the answer to everything.

You wrote that the only problem with Indonesia was the lack of education and knowledge about how to operate democratic institutions, which just goes back to why implementing democracy too quickly is bad. Strong democratic institutions are created by the government when they have to make up for some lack in their country (i.e. resources). I have doubts on whether Indonesia wasn't influenced by the US to become democratic, but since I don't have any resources to back that up right now, I'll concede on that point. My main point is that this obsession with democracy isn't exactly good, because democracy is something a nation builds up to, not something that should be automatically implemented. [/font]

[James]

[quote]I mean 'forced' democracy as in democracy is just instated into a country. Liberal democracy isn't something that can just be put into power, even if a country has one before. There's a process to building up any type of government. Sometimes it might work, but you can't expect voting to suddenly create secure constitutional rights or actually liberal democracy.[/quote]

[color=#606060]The thing is though…who is expecting the ability to vote to suddenly create secure constitutional rights? I don’t think anyone suggested that really.

It’s true that the ability to vote does not automatically bring with it improved rights.

However, it’s important to understand that Iraq didn’t peacefully transition between democracy and dictatorship. When Saddam’s party came to power, it forcefully manipulated and hijacked the existing democratic system.

So it’s not as though the Iraqi people voted for a new system and then had America [i]force[/i] another system onto them. Rather, America facilitated a [i]return[/i] to the system that had been created by the Iraqi people through their existing democracy.

And from that basis, Iraq has the opportunity to make decisions about the implementation of reforms including the incorporation of constitutional rights and so on. Under Saddam Hussein’s government, such ability to reform one’s own society did not exist.

It’s also important to mention that Iraqi citizens are the architects of their new democracy. It wasn’t so much about America forcing democracy on Iraq…it was about American [i]removing[/i] a parasitical entity that had largely corrupted the democracy that already existed. I think that’s an important disctintion.[/color]
[quote]
I think it's important that a direct predecent of pluralism or opposing parties needs to be present; while Iraq may have had a democratic government before Saddam doesn't matter, because it was before Saddam's reign. You still can't really just jump into a new form of government, epsecially when it's being pushed by a 200-year-old democratic nation that thinks democracy is just the answer to everything.[/quote]

[color=#606060]I don’t really see your point here though.

First of all, if you think that there were no opposing parties while Saddam was in power…that just isn’t factually correct. Saddam was the head of one party and there were others in parliament at the time. The reason Saddam was in power was because he’d achieved a majority in the federal parliament and this majority was then abused through force.

When Saddam came to power, do you imagine that all of the opposition parties just disappeared? Where did they go?

Of course these groups still existed. And they still had members and affiliations.

Whether or not there was a direct link between the old democracy and the new is largely irrelevant. What matters is that Iraq now has the ability to determine that for itself; if the new democracy is somehow unpopular, the Iraqi people at least have the opportunity to make the changes that they feel they need.

Also I should point out that Iraq isn’t “just jumping into a new form of government”. All of the public institutions that existed before Saddam also existed while he was in power – and still exist. So what’s the difference? The difference now is that the current Iraqi government respects the authority of the different powers. These entities, which always existed, have simply had their authority returned to them.[/color]
[quote]
You wrote that the only problem with Indonesia was the lack of education and knowledge about how to operate democratic institutions, which just goes back to why implementing democracy too quickly is bad. Strong democratic institutions are created by the government when they have to make up for some lack in their country (i.e. resources). I have doubts on whether Indonesia wasn't influenced by the US to become democratic, but since I don't have any resources to back that up right now, I'll concede on that point. My main point is that this obsession with democracy isn't exactly good, because democracy is something a nation builds up to, not something that should be automatically implemented.[/quote]

[color=#606060]Indonesia is an example of how democracy can be difficult to implement. But there’s a problem with your comparison.

Indonesia has never built democratic institutions, nor does it have the experience or knowledge to run these institutions with great effectiveness; there’s definitely a longterm development going on.

Iraq is different because it has historically been a democracy, at least during much of the 20th century. Iraq didn’t need to learn everything from scratch; it already had educated officials who had experience in managing government responsibilities. It also had well-established federal court systems, which were quite capable of upholding newer constitutional reforms.

Indonesia’s move to democracy was largely influenced by internal parties, many of whom distrusted Suharto’s regime. One of the big concerns was corruption (of which there was a great deal) and many of these smaller groups motivated larger groups to go out and protest on the street. The big change came when Suharto resigned as a result.

As for your last point…I don’t know. In terms of democracy being automatically implemented, I think it’s important to understand exactly how the process works.

It’s not as though America breezed in one day and said “Iraq, time to be a democracy! By the time you wake up tomorrow, you’ll be just like us!”

Doesn’t work that way.

Iraq has taken [i]years[/i] and several layers of elections to achieve a basic repositioning of its political system. All we hear about is the conflict, but I guarantee you, there have been countless meetings, conferences, forums, redistributions and so on. The various political groups in Iraq are – and have been – working incredibly hard to put together the functional elements of a “new” democracy. So it’s still a process that is continuing.

But as I said earlier, there’s one bottom line to the entire discussion: at least now, the Iraqi people can make fundamental choices about how they want the country to operate. Even if you accept the argument that democracy was implemented too soon, what is the ultimate point of saying that? That it shouldn’t have happened at all? That it should have taken longer?

Ultimately that question is largely irrelevant – even if the Iraqis thought that, for example, redistribution of House seats was done improperly…they now have a mechanism to change that and to debate that. So no matter what, the fundamental mechanism is in place to allow for self-motivated change.

If Iraq wants to make further changes or if it doesn’t want to modify certain areas of its political system…it will or won’t. The beautiful thing is that it’s [i]their[/i] decision, not ours. [/color]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]Clinton has momentum and generous face time. I have the opinion that it is not her issues that turn people off usually. I hear some people who think her platform is too centrist, or that she is playing to republican angles too much. The majority of the time people simply just don't like her. It's either her personality they hate, her using Bill's spotlight, and sometimes it's the concept of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton that worries people.[/color][/QUOTE]

Her generous face time is what turns most of us off, methinks.

[IMG]http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg[/IMG]

"I will eat your heart!"

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Just as a warning, I'm pulling all of this from memory of articles I have read and are sitting somewhere in my locker at school. So I do have reliable sources, and I'm not just pulling this out of nowhere, I just happen to not have them with me. =_=[/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]The thing is though…who is expecting the ability to vote to suddenly create secure constitutional rights? I don’t think anyone suggested that really. [/color][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I mean, George Bush. lol He might not have really thought that, but there was so much hype about Iraq's "first elections" and media implied that this voting automatically meant Iraq was a democracy now, just like the US. Which was crap, basically. People think it was good for America to go over and make Iraq democratic again, but it wasn't. [/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]
So it’s not as though the Iraqi people voted for a new system and then had America [i]force[/i] another system onto them. Rather, America facilitated a [i]return[/i] to the system that had been created by the Iraqi people through their existing
democracy. [/color][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Saddam's time in power created mass corruption and confliction internally, and just because it was a return doesn't mean everything will be dandy-fine. I'm not saying everyone believes this, or that you think this (clearly you don't) but trust me, there are people in the US who think just because Iraq is 'democratic' the US has done it a great favor. Were we even justified in going other there in the first place? How's reconstruction doing? And now that we're in this mess, what will people think when we just decide to pull out? [/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]And from that basis, Iraq has the opportunity to make decisions about the implementation of reforms including the incorporation of constitutional rights and so on. Under Saddam Hussein’s government, such ability to reform one’s own society did not exist.

It’s also important to mention that Iraqi citizens are the architects of their new democracy. It wasn’t so much about America forcing democracy on Iraq…it was about American [i]removing[/i] a parasitical entity that had largely corrupted the democracy that already existed. I think that’s an important disctintion.[/color][/QUOTE]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]Indonesia is an example of how democracy can be difficult to implement. But there’s a problem with your comparison.

Indonesia has never built democratic institutions, nor does it have the experience or knowledge to run these institutions with great effectiveness; there’s definitely a longterm development going on.

Iraq is different because it has historically been a democracy, at least during much of the 20th century. Iraq didn’t need to learn everything from scratch; it already had educated officials who had experience in managing government responsibilities. It also had well-established federal court systems, which were quite capable of upholding newer constitutional reforms.[/color][/quote]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I really just don't agree with you here. I know I sound stupid for saying this, but I'll have to come back later with research to back up my point, so I'll do that tomorrow.

But I will say this- why democracy? There's such an obsession with the idea of democracy, that it will help pave the way for a great future, but who knows? Again, just because it worked out the US doesn't mean it's suitable for other countries. Can nations in the Middle East, that have the vast and disgustingly rich resource of oil in the hands of a few super wealthy families really form effective government institutions?

Same with Indonesia. Reliant on its own natural resources, the country had weak political institutions and a low per capita income, and after its democratic reformation their gross domestic product decreased by fifty percent and 20 million people were pushed under the poverty line. Sometimes you need elements of a capitalistic economy, or at least a bourgeoisie to demands rights from governments.

The IMF and the U.S. government demanded radical reforms in Indonesia during the late 90s, but they didn't realize the political instability those reforms would produce. Similarly, in India, the quick implementation of free elections gave birth to special interest parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, which used religious conflict and intolerance to gain power. [/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]
But as I said earlier, there’s one bottom line to the entire discussion: at least now, the Iraqi people can make fundamental choices about how they want the country to operate. Even if you accept the argument that democracy was implemented too soon, what is the ultimate point of saying that? That it shouldn’t have happened at all? That it should have taken longer?[/color][/quote]

[font="trebuchet ms"] YES. Yes, it should have taken longer. That's my point. Real liberal democracies are supposed to take time. There's supposed to be rights demanded by a middle class, a resource-poor nation, a capitalist economy, and other things.

[i]Should[/i] it have happened at all? Who says democracy was the best course for a country like Iraq? The Westerners? Because it worked for us, surely it'll do great things for other nations...

Building a truly liberal democracy is gradual, and I'm not saying if countries take it step-by-step it'll be hardship-free. I'm saying a quick jump to democracy just raises the chances for corruption, democratic autocracy, etc.[/font]

[quote name='Aceburner']Her generous face time is what turns most of us off, methinks.

[IMG]http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg[/IMG]

"I will eat your heart!"[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] And in regards to this, I hate anyone who takes physical appearance into deciding who they should vote for. [/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] And in regards to this, I hate anyone who takes physical appearance into deciding why they should vote for. [/font][/QUOTE]

Relax. I kid.

However, I will say there's just something I don't really like about her. She seems a bit overbearing at times. I'll definitely be rooting for Obama this time around (from what I've seen this year, Giulianni doesn't stand a chance. It looks like the Republicans don't have a chance even if Jesus announces that he's running. Also, don't regard this comment as anything. As far as I'm concerned, the party system needs to go bye-bye.)

[James]

[color=#606060]I like it when Hillary gets asked a question that she dislikes and she does that weird laugh. She does it every single time, it's pretty funny. lol[/color]

[quote] I mean, George Bush. lol He might not have really thought that, but there was so much hype about Iraq's "first elections" and media implied that this voting automatically meant Iraq was a democracy now, just like the US. Which was crap, basically. People think it was good for America to go over and make Iraq democratic again, but it wasn't. [/quote]

[color=#606060]To your first point, I agree that the media spins things quite a lot. The first elections after Saddam’s fall were definitely historical and significant though.

They were also precisely what the Iraqi public wanted. So you know…I don’t tend to make judgements about whether their system is “right or wrong”, because really, it’s the system they want and are supporting in an obvious way.

As far as what America did…in principle I agreed that Saddam needed to be dealt with. [i]However[/i], there were massive misjudgements on the part of the American government and military, which resulted in a sloppy handover period (especially with regard to training).

I tend to separate that particular point (was it right to go in) from the point that Iraq is better off with democracy (regardless of how it came to being).[/color]

[quote]Saddam's time in power created mass corruption and confliction internally, and just because it was a return doesn't mean everything will be dandy-fine. I'm not saying everyone believes this, or that you think this (clearly you don't) but trust me, there are people in the US who think just because Iraq is 'democratic' the US has done it a great favor. Were we even justified in going other there in the first place? How's reconstruction doing? And now that we're in this mess, what will people think when we just decide to pull out? [/quote]

[color=#606060]Well, I believe that the US did the Iraqi people a massive favour by removing a dictatorship that the Iraqis wanted gone (and could not remove on their own).

Having said that, you are 100% right in saying that it isn’t all dandy. Anyone who thinks that transitioning an entire political system is [i]easy[/i] is definitely misunderstanding how it all happens. But anything like this – and often anything worthwhile in general – is tough.

As for your questions, I do think the coalition was justified to go in, but my problem is with how the occupation was handled subsequently. Not nearly enough planning went into dealing with functional issues like training and policing. That’s proven to be a major problem.

And as for pulling out, I agree – you can’t go into a country and then suddenly pull out when it all gets too hard. We are really obligated to stay until the Iraqi security services are in a position to operate 100% independently. They are certainly on the way there (certain parts of the country are entirely under Iraqi security control). But yeah, definitely plenty more to do. [/color]

[quote] But I will say this- why democracy? There's such an obsession with the idea of democracy, that it will help pave the way for a great future, but who knows? Again, just because it worked out the US doesn't mean it's suitable for other countries. Can nations in the Middle East, that have the vast and disgustingly rich resource of oil in the hands of a few super wealthy families really form effective government institutions? [/quote]

[color=#606060]I agree with the idea that democracy isn’t something you can quickly transplant into a country that has had thousands of years of monarchy.

For instance, I wouldn’t think it’d be easy to immediately input this type of system into, say, Qatar.
In terms of why democracy though, I think you have to look at the context. First of all, democracies are not all made alike. It is a misconception to think that America is enforcing its own style of democracy on other countries.

In Australia, our democratic system is a hybrid model – it’s 50% based on America and 50% based on Britain. And it works incredibly well.

In Iraq, their democratic system was/is different again.

What I would say is that democracy – when established properly – does provide a framework for fundamental reforms such as civil rights and so on. Democracy is also the only philosophy that really allows for self-determination.

As I said though, there are many kinds of democracy. America’s is one kind, Iraq’s is another and Australia’s is yet another. They all have pros and cons, but ultimately I think most people would tell you that self-determination is better than autocratic rule.[/color]

[quote]
Same with Indonesia. Reliant on its own natural resources, the country had weak political institutions and a low per capita income, and after its democratic reformation their gross domestic product decreased by fifty percent and 20 million people were pushed under the poverty line. Sometimes you need elements of a capitalistic economy, or at least a bourgeoisie to demands rights from governments. [/quote]

[color=#606060]Yes you do need elements of a capitalistic economy, but democracy and capitalism are not mutually exclusive (quite the opposite really).

Indonesia’s move to democracy, in and of itself, is not the source of its woes. Much of the problem in Indonesia is related to the fact that the country still clings to poor habits from the past (including rampant corruption). Indonesia also doesn’t have the necessary maturity in its economic regulations to provide the right environment for healthy business growth.

These issues are not intrinsically tied to democracy though. In China, which is now adopting a “capitalist socialist” type system, the government has instituted business reforms to provide capitalistic elements for business…yet the government is still fundamentally socialist. [/color]

[quote]
The IMF and the U.S. government demanded radical reforms in Indonesia during the late 90s, but they didn't realize the political instability those reforms would produce. Similarly, in India, the quick implementation of free elections gave birth to special interest parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, which used religious conflict and intolerance to gain power. [/quote]

[color=#606060]I’m not really sure what your point is though. Indonesia’s reforms were and are necessary for the country’s economy to develop. I think you’ll find that the relationship between reform and instability isn’t a direct causal relationship – there are other factors involved.

Also in the case of India, you have to make a distinction between “democracy” and “abuse of power”. The two are not inherently related.

Democracy is like any political system; people can corrupt it. This is what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. I don’t think this reflects badly on democracy, but rather, I think it reflects badly on those who abuse their power (no matter the circumstances).[/color]

[quote] YES. Yes, it should have taken longer. That's my point. Real liberal democracies are supposed to take time. There's supposed to be rights demanded by a middle class, a resource-poor nation, a capitalist economy, and other things.[/quote]

[color=#606060]How long? It’s already taken years to implement. How do you make that determination?

And again, you can’t make generalisations about this sort of thing. Iraq had many of these elements inherently in place before these transitions took place (in terms of economy and resources particularly).

I think you’ll find that the question is much like asking how long is a piece of string – it’s entirely dependent on the circumstances.[/color]

[quote]
Should it have happened at all? Who says democracy was the best course for a country like Iraq? The Westerners? Because it worked for us, surely it'll do great things for other nations... [/quote]

[color=#606060]Who said? The Iraqi people, that’s who. Lol

The country was previously a democracy and there were no less than two failed uprisings. Moreover, there are a number of democratic activists who have been operating in Iraq for years.

So, if Iraq really didn’t want democracy that’d be one thing. But they do and it is the Iraqis themselves who are in the driver’s seat. I think some Iraqi leaders and scholars are offended by the idea that someone else is doing it all for them.[/color]

[quote]
Building a truly liberal democracy is gradual, and I'm not saying if countries take it step-by-step it'll be hardship-free. I'm saying a quick jump to democracy just raises the chances for corruption, democratic autocracy, etc.[/quote]

[color=#606060]Well, you know, in Iraq it [i]is[/i] gradual. It’s being done carefully and with due consideration. I’m not sure what more we can expect; I would not want to place an arbitrary number of years on the outcome.

I agree with your last sentence, but I don’t think that it really applies to Iraq in particular. It does apply to Indonesia though – but again, it doesn’t negate the need to transition to democracy, it just means that the [i]process[/i] must be handled with care.

And no need to apologise at all in terms of sources and stuff – you are a very respectful member and you’ve shown me a lot of courtesy. So I want you to know that I appreciate that. I think it’s a great example to other members who want to debate. :catgirl:[/color]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Aceburner']Relax. I kid.

However, I will say there's just something I don't really like about her. She seems a bit overbearing at times. I'll definitely be rooting for Obama this time around (from what I've seen this year, Giulianni doesn't stand a chance. It looks like the Republicans don't have a chance even if Jesus announces that he's running. Also, don't regard this comment as anything. As far as I'm concerned, the party system needs to go bye-bye.)[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Yeah, that post was pretty directive. :animeswea But it was general, my bad. You can't really beat my school on this, though, we had an entire conversation about whether Bush was uglier than Kerry. v_v[/font]

[Retribution]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]Well, I believe that the US did the Iraqi people a massive favour by removing a dictatorship that the Iraqis wanted gone (and could not remove on their own).[/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Yes, we did them a massive favor... for the time being. We'll see how the political destabilization of the region goes, and what exactly happens in the future before we judge the invasion to be a fundamentally good thing. Granted, Iraq is crippled despite the fact the US has poured in twice the amount of money Japan used to rebuild Nagasaki/Hiroshima post-WWII (dollars were indeed adjusted for inflation), and there still is no electricity in many parts of the country.

[quote][color=#606060]Having said that, you are 100% right in saying that it isn?t all dandy. Anyone who thinks that transitioning an entire political system is [i]easy[/i] is definitely misunderstanding how it all happens. But anything like this ? and often anything worthwhile in general ? is tough.[/color][/quote]
Perhaps we misunderstand how political systems are transformed effectively in the first place. Invading with the noble intention of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" without understanding the sociopolitical intricacies that existed on the ground, and failure to understand that these intricacies present themselves as massive barriers to the goal is [i]never[/i] prudent.

[quote][color=#606060]As for your questions, I do think the coalition was justified to go in, but my problem is with how the occupation was handled subsequently.[/color][/quote]
On what grounds? I'm curious.

[QUOTE][color=#606060]And as for pulling out, I agree ? you can?t go into a country and then suddenly pull out when it all gets too hard. We are really obligated to stay until the Iraqi security services are in a position to operate 100% independently. They are certainly on the way there (certain parts of the country are entirely under Iraqi security control). But yeah, definitely plenty more to do. [/color][/QUOTE]
This is a great goal, but it flies in the face of the vast majority of sources on Iraqi 'progress'. I speak primarily of the Baker Report and the marginal impact of the US "surge".[/font]

[James]

[quote] Yes, we did them a massive favor... for the time being. We'll see how the political destabilization of the region goes, and what exactly happens in the future before we judge the invasion to be a fundamentally good thing. Granted, Iraq is crippled despite the fact the US has poured in twice the amount of money Japan used to rebuild Nagasaki/Hiroshima post-WWII (dollars were indeed adjusted for inflation), and there still is no electricity in many parts of the country.[/quote]

[color=#606060]I think that the idea of freeing the Iraqi people is fundamentally good and has long term benefits.

But I do not think that the situation in Iraq is easy. It’s compounded by a) America’s lack of planning for the aftermath and b) intervention by neighbouring countries.

So it’s unquestionably a different situation than Japan was post-WWII – I would agree with you there.[/color]

[quote] Perhaps we misunderstand how political systems are transformed effectively in the first place. Invading with the noble intention of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" without understanding the sociopolitical intricacies that existed on the ground, and failure to understand that these intricacies present themselves as massive barriers to the goal is never prudent.[/quote]

[color=#606060]Oh yeah, I would agree with you entirely. Nobody could say that the whole thing was done prudently, lol.

But having said that, there are a myriad of reforms going on within Iraq at the moment – I am referring to things that are largely unrelated to what America is doing (i.e. federal political reforms within Baghdad). Those reforms are all valuable and they obviously need to continue happening, because a stable political system will help to facilitate better internal decision-making surrounding military development, policing, border control and public policy.[/color]

[quote] On what grounds? I'm curious.[/quote]

[color=#606060]Well, to be honest with you…that’s a whole other discussion. I could sit here and go into great detail about this subject. I want to be careful about that because I don’t want to derail the thread [i]too[/i] much.

At the moment we are really talking about democracy and its implementation, rather than justifications for the action in Iraq.

It’s hard to summarise. But essentially, there are two grounds. One, humanitarian: the citizens of Iraq rebelled (unsuccessfully) twice against Hussein.

When this happened, they needed international support and they didn’t get it. In my view, Saddam should have been ousted at the end of the first Gulf War – unfortunately the international community stopped short, despite Iraqi pleas for assistance.

So although it’s late, it’s probably better late than never.

And secondly, on legal grounds. The first Gulf War technically didn’t end – it simply suspended due to a cease fire. Under the resolution confirming the cease fire, Iraq was told that if it violated the terms of the agreement, the military action would resume.

Iraq violated those cease fire conditions on multiple occasions over a ten year period. So, technically, they violated a cease fire and there was already a legal provision for action to be taken.

Subsequently I think everyone can say that the response was handled poorly – I would not doubt that. But there are certainly a great many misconceptions about the situation, just as there were regarding Germany in WWII.[/color]

[quote] This is a great goal, but it flies in the face of the vast majority of sources on Iraqi 'progress'. I speak primarily of the Baker Report and the marginal impact of the US "surge".[/quote]

[color=#606060]In fact, most authoritative reports suggest that large areas of Iraq are now stable. There are pockets where violence is still occurring, but many major cities are now secure. There are also multiple reports suggesting that the troop surge is yielding positive results.

Ultimately there are a lot of contrasting reports and there are a great many interests motivating these reports.

One thing you have to be very careful about is relying largely on entertainment based news, for instance. Most news organisations only ever report negative and/or sensational news - this is true even in everyday life (i.e. murders get reported but major medical recoveries often don't). Unfortunately watching general commercial news will provide an impression that is very different than the actual reality.

And as I said, I would agree that many aspects of the conflict have been handled incredibly poorly – there’s absolutely no question about that.

But that is kind of a different issue to the question of how political systems are implemented and so on. I have tried not to meld these two together because doing so risks completely changing the nature of this thread; if we are to discuss reasoning behind the war and such, we should probably do so in a dedicated thread.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

This current topic has become tiresome. Your new topic?

Discuss the literal presidential race. If Rudy, Hilary, and Obama were to compete in the 100-meter sprint, who would win, and by how much?

[eleanor]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]
As I said though, there are many kinds of democracy. America?s is one kind, Iraq?s is another and Australia?s is yet another. They all have pros and cons, but ultimately I think most people would tell you that self-determination is better than autocratic rule.[/color][/quote]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I do think that representative governments are ideal, but just to reinforce an idea you mention later on, it's important that governments must differ according to their circumstances. My fuel for my arguments stem mostly from the idea that so many countries want what some other country has for a government, but may not take into consideration what's best for them. And the idea that a lot of American citizens think their form of government is superior, lol.[/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]Yes you do need elements of a capitalistic economy, but democracy and capitalism are not mutually exclusive (quite the opposite really).

Indonesia?s move to democracy, in and of itself, is not the source of its woes. Much of the problem in Indonesia is related to the fact that the country still clings to poor habits from the past (including rampant corruption). Indonesia also doesn?t have the necessary maturity in its economic regulations to provide the right environment for healthy business growth.

These issues are not intrinsically tied to democracy though. In China, which is now adopting a ?capitalist socialist? type system, the government has instituted business reforms to provide capitalistic elements for business?yet the government is still fundamentally socialist. [/color][/quote]

[font="trebuchet ms"]
Capitalism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, yes, but I think having a capitalistic economy contributes greatly to building a liberal democracy. You have wealthy, middle-class people who will want some say in government, but it's just one factor among many.

I think it can be argued to an extent the capitalistic state of the major power cities in China will eventually, some time in the future, lead to some sort of political revolution. If a middle class is forming, that is. I really don't know much about China, though. I think the same can be applied to a lot of other countries, because it's just a universal theme in history. [/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]I?m not really sure what your point is though. Indonesia?s reforms were and are necessary for the country?s economy to develop. I think you?ll find that the relationship between reform and instability isn?t a direct causal relationship ? there are other factors involved.

Also in the case of India, you have to make a distinction between ?democracy? and ?abuse of power?. The two are not inherently related.

Democracy is like any political system; people can corrupt it. This is what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. I don?t think this reflects badly on democracy, but rather, I think it reflects badly on those who abuse their power (no matter the circumstances).[/color][/quote]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I agree with your point that corrupt democratic governments reflects badly on the abusers, but I think that what raises the chances of a radical abuser is the hasty implementation of democracy. I know it's sort of moot to argue that letting a country develop on its own will ensure safety, because the US went through turbulent times trying to institute its own government, but influencing and pushing other countries to adopt it isn't healthy.[/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]
And again, you can?t make generalisations about this sort of thing. Iraq had many of these elements inherently in place before these transitions took place (in terms of economy and resources particularly).

I think you?ll find that the question is much like asking how long is a piece of string ? it?s entirely dependent on the circumstances.[/color][/quote]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I think it's the opposite, because Iraq had oil wealth went quickly into the hands of few, which blocked the way for good institution-building. Whereas in places like Japan, where resources were few, good institutions were made. Though bringing up Japan attacks my own point, because the influence the US used on Japan ended up being a relatively good thing. [/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060]Well, you know, in Iraq it [i]is[/i] gradual. It?s being done carefully and with due consideration. I?m not sure what more we can expect; I would not want to place an arbitrary number of years on the outcome.

I agree with your last sentence, but I don?t think that it really applies to Iraq in particular. It does apply to Indonesia though ? but again, it doesn?t negate the need to transition to democracy, it just means that the [i]process[/i] must be handled with care.
[/color][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I'll agree with you here, just mostly because sometimes things don't work out for some countries. Luck plays a part in all of this, too, so it's not entirely in the hands of the people trying to get it done.[/font]

[quote name='The Blue Jihad']This current topic has become tiresome. Your new topic?

Discuss the literal presidential race. If Rudy, Hilary, and Obama were to compete in the 100-meter sprint, who would win, and by how much?[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] [strike]The black guy, duh.[/strike][/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='The Blue Jihad']This current topic has become tiresome. Your new topic?

Discuss the literal presidential race. If Rudy, Hilary, and Obama were to compete in the 100-meter sprint, who would win, and by how much?[/QUOTE]

Obama's the only physically fit one. That's a terrible way to decide an election (though my favorite would probably win :animesmil.)

[quote name='James][COLOR="Gray"']As I said though, there are many kinds of democracy. America’s is one kind, Iraq’s is another and Australia’s is yet another. They all have pros and cons, but ultimately I think most people would tell you that self-determination is better than autocratic rule.[/COLOR][/quote]

I'll just clear this up right now. This is a common misconception. Remember this, everyone: America is NOT a Democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. Therefore, while we have many traits of Democratic states, we are, first and foremost, a Republic.

(Not that this affects the discussion much, I agree that any political system can be horribly corrupted by the right[?] people.)

[Retribution]

[quote name='The Blue Jihad']Discuss the literal presidential race. If Rudy, Hilary, and Obama were to compete in the 100-meter sprint, who would win, and by how much?[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Not only is Obama a decade or so younger than the rest of the candidates, he's half Kenyan... which probably wouldn't translate too well into short-distance running, as Kenyans (and Eastern Africans, for that matter) are generally good at long distance running, but it's better than Rudy/Hillary.

He also goes to the gym every day he's in Washington, true story. I got my money on him.[/font]