Constitutionalism vs democracy.....

[thebigriddle]

As most of you think we live a in a democracy. What most people forget is we have a constitution which sets limits on what our representatives are allowed to do and not to do. The government has not rights only powers. And limited powers unless unchecked. The question I have is yes, our representatives say Iraq is liberated, but the question to what end? Will forge a constitution creating limitation on their new government, or will we see a democracy which gives unlimited power to it's leaders. Will they have a bill of rights, outlines what all basic rights are of it's citizens. Or will they be at the whim of their legislature. It takes nothing for a person with money or power to reach the pennicle of the political tower. I am sorry to say when our own government is not following the constitution and are passing bill which they know are unconstitutional and it goes uncheck, how can we entrust our representatives to do the same in another country. So far, what is said the war is over, and there is much protesting from the people of Iraq. They could create a theocratic constitutional based democracy. Don't forget slave was included in our constitution until repeal. I think it is very difficult to change a culture which is thousands of years old and I think it is erogant to believe that you think you can. If it was the Soviets who funded and trained the terrorist why are they not being held accountable for it? Oh, communism has fallen and therefore the people in charge are ok now. I don't forget the communist party converted over to a "democracy". Most of them are still communist. The ultimate thing is their a limitation on the government. I know some American people who like to see a stronger government and will to give up their rights for safety and not have to think or make choices. They don't want a big brother, they want a big father tell them what to do like a child. Before you believe what the TV is telling you do a little research. And don't be so idealistic to think that our representatives are honest and doing this for the greater good of the Iraq people or the United states.

[thebigriddle]

I realize that unless you have the time to study the laws in the United states to include the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and other laws going back to England it might seem a little confusing. History makes for presedence. I realize that most have not even studied our own origins. The war of independence was not that long ago.

[civiltech]

Well written.

Best regards,

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Goal: Remove Saddam from power
Bonus for Iraqiis: Liberation

It is that simple. I back the war and I know the true reason is not "liberation". And I do not think I am being arogant when I assume we can help the people of Iraq by setting up a constitutional republic (not democracy). The Iraqi people have histroy...and? Does it not seem arogant to assume tehy will not change? Not to sound as if I am preaching, but what says they won't? They are not dumb people, just uneducated, once educated I believe they will change.

[civiltech]

The reason they won't change is the same reason the US doesn't change.

Why would an Iraqi country, or even the entire region who is geared towards a particular type of governing body suddenly embrase another foreign form. Even Jordan, beautiful, democratic country of the middle east has a king. And don't doubt it everyone knows who in charge there! The King.

The US has the mind set that a democratic republic (whatever you call it), with all it's bell's and whistles is the standard for responsible government, and democracy. Can the State's get past that? What if there was a better way? I remember watching that Star Wars movie and the Queen got elected, and served for two terms....never heard of a queen like that. A president yes. The American mindset is geared towards a particular form of government. Thats what you grew up with, that's been the norm since the birth of your country. If someone came up to the masses with another form, better in some ways, would the masses suddenly jump on board?

I think you'll see a Constitutional Monarchy in the US before you see a US government style democracy in Iraq! Maybe if the US keeps an occupying force in Iraq for the next 25 years so that the next generation grow up with that form of government, but if not, the minute the US occupying forces leave, ....back to the old heirarchal system!

[veeco]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
They are not dumb people, just uneducated, once educated I believe they will change.

To say that the Iraqis are uneducated sounds a lot like what former europeans would have said from the people in their colonies...

Maybe it's time to remind people that Baghdad used to be the capital of knowledge, that a lot of what we know today in maths, science and philosophy comes from that city itself? You may know it already and I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say though...

[civiltech]

Originally posted by veeco
To say that the Iraqis are uneducated sounds a lot like what former europeans would have said from the people in their colonies...

Maybe it's time to remind people that Bagdhad used to be the capital of knowledge, that a lot of what we know today in maths, science and philosophy comes from that city itself? You may know it already and I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say though...

Well said. There was street lighting in Damascus when the Europeans were perfecting cross - bows!! The middle east was quite the hubub of art, science, and culture. Even in the 40's and 50's, Lebanon was considered the "Paris of the Middle East." It was a beautiful city bustling with action, and adventure before it fell into civil war.

Baghdad is a modern city, with modern people. Unfortunately, it was under a tyranical rule.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

First:
There is nothing inherently crazy with a king getting elected. That was standard procedure in many European countries during middle ages, and in some places afterwards. It is still practiced in the Vatican state and in Malaysia.

Second: Many mathematical and astonomical terms are Arabic in origin - zenith, nadir, etc. The Arab countries were repositories for Hellenic history and knowledge when the Christian countries were for all intents and purposes absolutely uncivilized.

have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[civiltech]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Hi!

First:
There is nothing inherently crazy with a king getting elected. That was standard procedure in many European countries during middle ages, and in some places afterwards. It is still practiced in the Vatican state and in Malaysia.

Second: Many mathematical and astonomical terms are Arabic in origin - zenith, nadir, etc. The Arab countries were repositories for Hellenic history and knowledge when the Christian countries were for all intents and purposes absolutely uncivilized.

have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

1st: Your going to have to be a little bit more specific on what country's and what time period...and the legitimacy of that throne.


2nd: I agree with you on your second paragraph.

[thebigriddle]

I tried to log on yesterday and it said I was log on and everytime I post I was having problems. I had wrote basically what you all had cover. The reality is that I am not Iraqi, but an American. I would not want to do what the British had done to the colonist at the beginning of our formation as a country. Second, to assume that the Iraqis want what we want is idiotic. Maybe some who have lived here, perhaps. That is very smal minority. I support my fellow Americans over there. I don't think it is our business to be over there. I can see supporting the Iraqis by arming them and training them to fight a war, a civil war, or revolution, if that is what they want. Do think our cultures are the same? Yes, we are all human, but our wants and needs maybe different. I think before we can go over and change the government there, perhaps we should try doing it over here.

Or maybe we should set up a McDonalds, Burger King or broadcast MTV over there. I heard everyone talk about ethnic diversity, why not leave a region alone.

I think some should read the newspaper from over there. They have them posted online. You will get the feeling we are not welcome.

Hey I got an idea, can I move in you house and stay a while. And then impose my way doing things. Doesn't sound very independent at all. They have to make mistakes on their own.

Remember no government works where there is corruption.

[pkt]

TheBigRiddle,

What a piece you wrote.

It is too bad you undermined yourself with some of your later outbursts...

Here's something that might open your eyes to your position that you take so proudly.

http://www.presidentlincoln.com/Quot...istorical.html

Hermann Goering

Goering: "...It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
[We can see how the current US Administration circumvented this incovenience. - PK]

Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

~ (Nazi leader Hermann Goering was interviewed by Gustave Gilbert, the prison psychologist who observed and interviewed the Nuremberg prisoners. The quote above is from Gilbert's book Nuremberg Diary.)

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It seems like on top of taking the rocket scientists from the 3rd Reich, Dubya and his fellow hawks have learned from the 3rd Reich. OTOH, poor Saddam has/had to satisfy himself with learning from his hero, Stalin.


"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, ..."
~ Dubya did that, didn't he, in spite of the fact that Iraq did NOT attack the US?

"... and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. "
~ According to the ABC report yesterday, Wed., 2003/04/16, this is exactly what's happening to a lot of the famous Hollywood stars who voiced their opposition to the attack on Iraq. e.g. Michael Moore. Susan Sarandon and hubby Tim Robbins, etc. Smells like Sen. Joe McCarthy all over again, doesn't it?



"Hey I got an idea, can I move in you house and stay a while. And then impose my way doing things. Doesn't sound very independent at all. They have to make mistakes on their own."

TBR, if I hadn't read some of your post, I'd have sworn that's a liberal statement. Then you contradict yourself with this:

"Remember no government works where there is corruption."

You seem to have left out one important word 'well'.

A corrupted governemnt will work. For the corrupted officials.

Do you think the US of A is not corrupted? Well, we know the business types are: Enron, World Com... So the question is: Is the US government corrupt?

Oh, but of course there is a system of 'checks and balances' in place:
'You write your CHECKS into my BALANCES.' is how the old saw goes.

When Dubya submitted his war budget to Congress, various songressmen attached their own pet projects to this budget. Is this corruption? I'll let you decide.

BTW, a communist state COULD be a democracy. The first one is a philosophy. The second one is a form of government.

In fact, there is no genuine communist state around. China is not a communist state. It is a socialist state. So is Canada when compared to the US. So are most of the EU countries. Aside from China, the others are all democracies.

---)-----------

OK people, please take note GRAMMAR time:

ITS = possessive case of 'it'
IT'S = contraction of 'it is'.

This is the only exception in the English language.

PK

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by thebigriddle

I think some should read the newspaper from over there. They have them posted online. You will the get the feeling we are not welcome.

Ministry of (mis)Information sound familiar?

Taking your view I am an idiot to assume that I, a lowely American know what the Iraqi people want. Correct me on anything I say that may be wrong. Well let us do some logic.

The Iraqii people who have a voice. i.e. the Iraqii National Congress (exiled Iraqiis, 22% of Iraq's population is no longer in Iraq) says that they are being repressed and that they need help.

So the Iraqiis want/ need help and a change in government.

Now, should we want this government to work, correct? again correct me if this is wrong.

So a working government....let us see what is working now. Essentially democracy is the form of government, in the world today, that works. (with a few socialist statesmixed in)

Because we as American's will be doing most of the reconstruction (not the UN) and we are a democracy, doesn't it make the most sense to set up something we know about?

So the people of Iraq who can speak up need help. We want to help them to the best of our ability. So we want to set up a government for them that will work..democracy.

What did I miss?

[pkt]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
Taking your view I am an idiot to assume that I, a lowely American know what the Iraqi people want. Correct me on anything I say that may be wrong. Well let us do some logic.

The Iraqii people who have a voice. i.e. the Iraqii National Congress (exiled Iraqiis, 22% of Iraq's population is no longer in Iraq) says that they are being repressed and that they need help.

So the Iraqiis want/ need help and a change in government.

Now, should we want this government to work, correct? again correct me if this is wrong.

So a working government....let us see what is working now. Essentially democracy is the form of government, in the world today, that works. (with a few socialist statesmixed in)

Because we as American's will be doing most of the reconstruction (not the UN) and we are a democracy, doesn't it make the most sense to set up something we know about?

So the people of Iraq who can speak up need help. We want to help them to the best of our ability. So we want to set up a government for them that will work..democracy.

What did I miss?

--)----------

First off, let's get it off our collective chests:
KS5, you're WRONG!!

OK, from there, let's step back and give you the reasons why you're wrong, oh so wrong.



"The Iraqii people who have a voice. i.e. the Iraqii National Congress (exiled Iraqiis, 22% of Iraq's population is no longer in Iraq) says that they are being repressed and that they need help.

"So the Iraqiis want/ need help and a change in government.

"Now, should we want this government to work, correct? again correct me if this is wrong. "

22% is not a majority.

This is from today's CBC site:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/18...gddprtst030418
Iraqis denounce American occupation
Last Updated Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:01:12
BAGHDAD - Tens of thousands of people hit the streets of Baghdad on Friday to protest against what they regard as a U.S.-led foreign occupation.

So which group has a bigger voice, which has a bigger number: the INC or the tens of thousands of Iraqis in Iraq?

Who do you listen to?

Or more relevant: Who would the Dubya Admin listen to? Most likely the INC. Why? Because that suits the US's purposes.

And don't forget, the INC is one one of many of the fractious former opposition, exile groups. There are the Sunnis, the Shiites, the kurds, just to mention the 3 main religion groups wihtin each there are splinter groups.



So do the Zimbawean people, so are the American calvary going to charge in and dump Mugabe and 'liberate the Zimbaweans from him?

No.

Why?

There's no oil in Zimbawe. And it is also a troublesome place. Too many troubles. Furthermore, Zimbawe is an inland country, too difficule to invade. Everything has to be flown in a la Entebbe.


"Because we as American's will be doing most of the reconstruction (not the UN) and we are a democracy, doesn't it make the most sense to set up something we know about?"

Not if the UN and the other permanent members of the Security Council have anything to say.

Not if the US want the UN to work. I know of all the nasty things the US admin ahve said about the UN's impotence and what not, but if you read the various lips of Dubya and his cohorts, they do not wish the demise of the UN. They do not wish to work outside of the UN. Remember what I wrote about the costs of the attack and the costs of the reconstruction.

Also remember that the sanctions put on Iraq can only be removed by the UN. [It's the law, Roper.]

With the sanction still in place MOST LAW-ABIDING COUNTRIES will not trade with Iraq IN THE OPEN. Hence the need for the US to work within the UN to have the sanctions removed. So Iraq can sell the oil at the market price. So they - whoevere they are - can use the proceeds to pay for the reconstruction.



As at this writing, we know that the US firm Bechtel - Who runs, or ran Bechtel? Find out for yourself. - will be doing some of the major capital intensive work: airport, water and sewage treatment planet...

Who do you think is going to pay for the reconstruction.

"So the people of Iraq who can speak up need help. We want to help them to the best of our ability. So we want to set up a government for them that will work..democracy."

So, do you think the US taxpayers will be willing to foot the reconstruction bill by themselves? Pay more taxes, more and so much, much more.

Will you, KS5, put your money where your mouth is? [Hey, take you r foot out, I need you to put your money there!!!] Will you be willing to pay for the reconstruction in Iraq by paying more taxes?

Remember the construction jobs will not be in the US. They will be hiring Iraqis to do the work.

Do you beleive in the trickle-down theory? That the money earned by Bechtel will not go into the pocket of the CEO, COOs, etc. of Bechtel so they can pay for multi-million if not billion mansions, private jetliners, etc? Remember Enron, et al.

Will you pay more taxes?

The american brand of democracy is NOT the best format. I beleive, and others - I know civiltech does - will agree with me, the constitutional monarchy that we see in the UK, and many EU countries are superior to the republican presidential system. But that's another debate.

These are what you've missed.

Thank you for your opinion.

PK

[thebigriddle]

I am not talking about the minitry of information, how about the Jordan Times and other new agencies. Oh, I have apologize, I have dyslexia and if I do not read or edit what I write, it sounds and reads like hell. Sorry. I edited my writing. And I did not undermined myself with what I wrote. I think we need to listen very carefully before jumping to a conclusion that is wrong and may affect the lives of millions of Iraqis, not to meantion our relationship with the same people. Also what about government at home. What about our rights in the United states. Do think government will truly support freedom in another country, when it passes legislature which is unconstitutional in our own? We will dictate our own will on them and call that freedom. And tell them not act out, or protest, because we are trying to protect their freedom? If our own government is dishonest with us, I can only assume that it will be dishonest with other people.

[thebigriddle]

I believe to allow the Iraq people to make the choice, good or bad, and allow them self determination. I believe they need guidance and yes education. I think they should look back into their own history and the histories of others and let them learn and figure out. I think they have some well educated and sharp people who can figure it out what kind of government they need.

[thebigriddle]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis...1703_live.html

here is an article which I could not have written any better myself. I think it is a great commentary to read.


Again, sorry for any grammer or spelling errors. I really need to work on it.

[thebigriddle]

I have no problem with democracy, but we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. We have set a limitation on our government. Our freedom is up to our will, not the governments. Our president is not the most powerful man in the world, he is the representation of the people. He is not a king, just a man, who was choosen by the people. To know what his powers are you must read the constitution. To know what the power of the legislature is, you must read the constitution. Sad to say most people have never actually read it and most in America cannot understand it because of our wonderful education system. Think Pkt has probably read it, and he is from Canada. We have democratic systems within the framework of the constitution, but that is all. In true democracy, you can vote on whether or not to kill a man, take his money, or whatever. Mob rule. Will the Iraqis have a constitution and what will the rule of law be.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by pkt
--)----------

22% is not a majority.

This is from today's CBC site:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/18...gddprtst030418
Iraqis denounce American occupation
Last Updated Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:01:12
BAGHDAD - Tens of thousands of people hit the streets of Baghdad on Friday to protest against what they regard as a U.S.-led foreign occupation.

Yes they are speaking out...but with what information? Not the true information... no of course not. THe people of Iraq are misinformed, it is not their fault, but they truely are misinformed.

There's no oil in Zimbawe. And it is also a troublesome place. Too many troubles. Furthermore, Zimbawe is an inland country, too difficule to invade. Everything has to be flown in a la Entebbe.

The war is not about oil. It is about removing Saddam from power and stopping a tyranny. WHo stopped Naziism...the US. ANd who stopped communism? the US.

The american brand of democracy is NOT the best format. I beleive, and others - I know civiltech does - will agree with me, the constitutional monarchy that we see in the UK, and many EU countries are superior to the republican presidential system. But that's another debate.

Really wanna rpove that the Us form of democracy is not the best?? Now what is the most powerful country in the wrold today? The United State, and we accomplished this in only 225 years (obviously less).

ANd what has the US done for the world? Stopped Naziism, stopped Communism, ended WWI, ended WWII, (I agree VIetnam was a mistake....before you say it). We have done more for the world, with such little in return and yet STILL remain the most dominant country. And you know why that is true....because of our highly AFFECTIVE government.

Now, thanks for your opinion

[Philistine]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
Yes they are speaking out...but with what information? Not the true information... no of course not. THe people of Iraq are misinformed, it is not their fault, but they truely are misinformed.

Well...perhaps. But they are also THERE. It seems somewhat ironic to advocate ignoring their wishes to put in a democracy so that they can govern by their wishes...if that is the case.

The war is not about oil. It is about removing Saddam from power and stopping a tyranny.

The war was about stabilizing a region of the world that has strategic importance to the U.S. Depending on who you believe, Iraq was causing instability because: (a) it was pursuing chemical/biological/nuclear weapons despite a UN imposed ban; (b) it was involved in or supported international terrorism (c) its ruler was a tyrant oppressing his people; (d) it was seen by the administration as a job left unfinished, and the recalcitrance of its leader was seen as a justification for war; or (e) some combination of the above or other factors.

WHo stopped Naziism...the US. ANd who stopped communism? the US.

Actually, the communists had quite a bit to do with stopping Nazism. Then there were the British (and the other Commonwealth countries). I'd say it was a joint effort.

As to who stopped communism? Is it stopped? Did anybody tell China? If you're talking about the USSR, I'd say it was its own leaders and economics which conspired to stop it, but I recognize it's a whole lot more complicated, and the US--by way of the arms race--had something to do with it (arguing what the effect of that was on the US makes a whole other interesting thread).

Really wanna rpove that the Us form of democracy is not the best?? Now what is the most powerful country in the wrold today? The United State, and we accomplished this in only 225 years (obviously less).

So, you are making a distinction between "democracy" and "US style democracy"? How much of the Constitution must be implemented before you have a "US style democracy"? One of the main issues of US democracy is an attempt to limit federalism by maintaining state rights. Is this appropriate in a country the size of Iraq with a strong tradition of centralized government, rather than regional government?

{snip}
And you know why that is true....because of our highly AFFECTIVE government.

I think you meant "effective." "Affective" government is not quite the image I think you were going for...


--Philistine

{Edited: Because that's what happens when you proofread after you post, rather than before }

[pkt]

Ack, Philistine, you trumped me to the same responses to KS5.

That said, thank you for making the points I'd have made. Saved me a lot of time. Furthermore, you've made one point I'd have missed: federalism vs state rights. I'm afterall not American, though I do know of that idiosyncracy of the US democracy. Unfortuantely more and more Cdn provinces are trying to steer our federal system towards the US system too. To wit, the adoption by the Premier of BC the very US term 'Heartland'. Gordo was educated in the US. He even has as US accent.

To that I'd add in resposne to this:
"We have done more for the world, with such little in return and yet STILL remain the most dominant country."

What is the lingua franca now at this the beginnign of the 21st century. English. Who gave this to the world? the US?

I contend that by colonising a major part of the world in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the Brits gave us the lingua franca, that I, a Chinese, can talk to you guys. They also gave the people of the Indian subcontinent a common tongue as well as a common enemy.

One thing that strikes me while watching the news in the last few years was how many leaders of foreign countries speak English fluently. Now I know Dubya speaks Spanish, but can you imagine him speaking Russian to Putin? Or German had the Nazis won WWII?

KS5,

It is not how much the US gave to the world that is important in this instance.

It is how the US gave to the world what it gave that is important.

In this point of history, the way the US have done it, it not only is not making the recipients of US largesse ungrateful, it is turning them against the US.

As a not uninvolved bystander, we in Canada dismay at this turn of events and wonder how long, if ever the US gov't will learn that gracefulness counts a lot towards being a donor.

Grace means not reminding the recipients that the donor made donations to help them out. Worse still, is to try to extract a return from the recipients.

In this, I've learned the Budhist philosophy is best. The highest achievement in the Budhist creed about donation is the '3 nothings'. when one makes a donation, there is no 'myself' making the donation. There is no recipient. There is no act of donation. That's zen. A bit difficult to undestand at first. But if you ponder it, you'll see the light.

This philosophy jives with my disdain for most religious people who do good or behave well just so they'll be rewarded in the next world.

The attack on Iraq illustrate the difference between the US and the UK. The difference is not dissimilar to the difference between the nouveau riche and old money.

Grace is the difference.

In this forum or any forum, grace also makes a big difference. cf the behaviour of the legislators in the 'mature' parliaments like the European - Latin countries excluded - and North american countries and those of Taiwan and Japan. In the latter, the parliamentarians get into fisticuffs, and worse still in the Japanese Diet, male parliamentarians beat up on the women counterparts in the Diet itself!!! Sacre bleu!

Difference in opinion does not necessitate hatred towards the person who holds the different opinions. Not only is it graceless, it is contrary to the Universal Code of Human Rights that most countries signed up for.

Other than grace, there is magnanimosity.

Take this as the Charlie Brown's view of the loser. He takes into consideration the feelings of the loser.

Yes, winning a bout is a great achievement. But one does not have to taunt the opponent. To win is to be expected. So why make such a big fuss of it, unless of course one does not expect to win...



Any way. I'll stop here, I'm beginning to ramble: I've been up since 4 to watch the F1. [It is now almost 9 a.m.]

As a result of Frau Schumacher's death ovenight, there was a pall over the winners circle ceremony. No champagne spraying.

That's proper.

One last point: How long do you, KS5, think the US will remain dominant? Remember my point about the causes of the fall of teh Roman Empire?

Nice day all,

PK