It went from a contained, unthreatening secular state with prison torture and rape rooms run by Saddam to a terrorist breeding ground, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy with prison torture and rape rooms run by overpaid US contractors.

It's fuking brilliant! It actually makes Vietnam look like a stunning success in comparison.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=3494

Tehran, Iran, Aug. 26 – A senior Iranian cleric welcomed on Friday the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iraq and hailed the country’s new constitution as one based on “Islamic precepts”.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who heads the powerful ultra-conservative Guardian Council, told worshippers in Tehran’s Friday prayers, “Fortunately, after years of effort and expectations in Iraq, an Islamic state has come to power and the constitution has been established on the basis of Islamic precepts”.

“We must congratulate the Iraqi people and authorities for this victory”, he said.

Jannati, who is a top confidant of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that all justice-seeking counties of the world “have no model other than the Islamic revolution in Iran to turn to”.

“Lebanese Hezbollah and the state of Iraq are not the only supporters of the Islamic revolution”, he said.

Referring to the West as Global Arrogance, the hard-line cleric said, “No matter how many stones they throw in our path, they cannot prevent the spread of the Islamic revolution in the world”.

“We are the winners in the nuclear issue, too”, Jannati said. “The way is paved for our progress and we just need to work hard”.

Jannati said the rising oil prices had placed Iran on a sound financial footing. “We still have problems, but less than before”.

In comments directed against other factions within the clerical regime, Jannati called on the new hard-line government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “purge executives who have been within our system, but who have been opposing our system and abusing people’s rights”.

“These executives must be purged as soon as possible”, the powerful cleric said.

rape rooms run by overpaid US contractors

Sounds like Goldman Sachs.

rape rooms run by overpaid US contractors

Sounds like Goldman Sachs.

Nah...sounds like the B-Fly - Troll Merchant...

It went from a contained, unthreatening secular state with prison torture and rape rooms run by Saddam to a terrorist breeding ground, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy with prison torture and rape rooms run by overpaid US contractors.

It's fuking brilliant! It actually makes Vietnam look like a stunning success in comparison.

And you and everyone else who though Iraq under Saddam was a nice place will fit into a thimble.

If you want to believe all this wacko propaganda from a rogue theocracy, then be my guest. But jeez, quit trolling up the forum with it.

When are you and all the other nits going to realize and accept that almost all the world's problems exist because of tyrannical dictatorships and militant theocracies, or the desire to create the same?

When are you and all the other nits going to realize and accept that democratic governments are the ones which allow their countries to progress and their peoples to prosper?

Or if you like and believe in what these nutcase countries are and want to promote, then go live there and see how long they allow you to use your computer for free expression on TVF!

Jeez! Talk about hypocrisy!

So I guess turning Iraq into an Islamic dictatorship was the plan all along, right ?

I am not following, need more explanation

If you want to believe all this wacko propaganda from a rogue theocracy, then be my guest. But jeez, quit trolling up the forum with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

POT - KETTLE - BLACK !!!

We are not bequeathing Democracy to Iraq.

We don't even have true representative democracy in our own countries. (Even though we now have the technology to have more referenda and unintermediated democracy)

We just elect a party which makes promises to us, then breaks them all, and does what it likes for 4-5 years.

In the third world, it means that 'here today gone tomorrow' politicans only have 5 years to steal a fortune instead of 30.

We are not bequeathing Democracy to Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

--Winston Churchill

We don't even have true representative democracy in our own countries. (Even though we now have the technology to have more referenda and unintermediated democracy)

I see no correlation between representative democracy and referenda or direct democracy.

Representative democracy with the checks and balances of:

-each representatives conscience,

-the integrated policies of their party,

-the views of the opposition,

-the compromises necessary sometimes to ensure a majority

is the system by which we ensure we are not dictated to by the majority. These checks are removed under a referendum or other forms of direct democracy (such as Swiss Cantons).

Take any issue and look at the populist view. This is what would be law under direct democracy. I certainly would not wish to live in a country governed by the mob.

There are of course many refinements we could introduce to improve our system e.g. proportional representation but we must never remove these checks and balances.

Checks and balances which also exist between the governmental executive, the parliamentary legislators and the legal judiciary.

This is the central core of democracy: not that an individual issue you may feel passionate about appears to be decided in a way you do not agree with, but rather the nature in which that decision is made, plus the element of political maturity in the electorate that accepts political loss in the knowledge that this guarantees the apparatus to change any decision, remains firmly in its place.

We just elect a party which makes promises to us, then breaks them all, and does what it likes for 4-5 years.

This is populist and, on the balence of things, not true. The statement, as bandied about in pubs or the worst of the newspapers, demonstrates how tenuous this hold on plitical maturity is. It is incumbant on all who value democracy to resist such generalisations.

In the third world, it means that 'here today gone tomorrow' politicans only have 5 years to steal a fortune instead of 30.

Unfortunately, despite what some western apologists may proclaim, there are very few countries outside of the West that practise democracy complete with the infrastructure of democratic institutions and the checks and balances between the governmental executive, the parliamentary legislators and the legal judiciary.

The consequence is corruption.

But corruption is present in the western democratic systems, you may say.

Yes it is. The difference being the perpetrators are discovered, prosecuted and punished.

I don't think UK is particularly democratic.

30% of the people voting chose Labour. Yet it has a 60 seat majority.

Taking into account the turn-out it might have been one in ten adults wanted Labour enough to vote for them.

Thats not democratic. You can call it 'Representative Democracy'....but its not Representative on the basis of those figures.

If we had referenda - fair enough, 'The Sun' would call the shots, we'd be out the EU and bring back hanging.

<Why is that unfair though, if that's what the majority want - and they're living in a Democracy>

In the absence of that, Proportional Representation would improve checks and balances.

PR has its drawbacks, but right now Gordon Brown can put up your taxes exactly as he pleases in the next 5 years to fund whatever they want.

is the system by which we ensure we are not dictated to by the majority

Well, perhaps the majority should decide ! I don't understand this comment.

If you want to believe all this wacko propaganda from a rogue theocracy, then be my guest. But jeez, quit trolling up the forum with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

POT - KETTLE - BLACK !!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh?

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

THIS JUST IN!!!

BUSH-CHENEY CONSPIRE WITH GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS TO DIVERT HURRICANE KATRINA TOWARD LOUISIANA TO CREATE OIL PRODUCTION SHORTAGE AND DRIVE UP GAS PRICES!

Crazy? Nutty?

No doubt.

But no less wacky than the lead sentiments in this thread and so many other recent related ones.

We are not bequeathing Democracy to Iraq.

We don't even have true representative democracy in our own countries. (Even though we now have the technology to have more referenda and unintermediated democracy)

We just elect a party which makes promises to us, then breaks them all, and does what it likes for 4-5 years.

In the third world, it means that 'here today gone tomorrow' politicans only have 5 years to steal a fortune instead of 30.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah okay fine, western and asian democracies aren't perfect, have their fair share of corruption, and could be made a lot better with some urgently needed changes in the political systems.

But this isn't the real question, because dictatorships and militant theocracies are equally if not more corrupt, and far less from perfect.

The real question is do the democratic systems work for the vast vast majority of people who live, work and exist in them?

The only logical answer is yes.

Can the same be said for governmental systems in all the truly messed up lesser nations like Syria, Israel/Palestine, lebanon, Iraq, Iran, almost anywhere in Africa, (fill in the blank)-istan, North Korea, Cuba, Indonesia, etc.?

The only logical answer is no.

They didn't build the Berlin wall to keep the people out. Right? You don't see people immigrating by the millions to Iraq, Iran, etc., like they do to the US, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, etc. There must be something good going on there.

I don't see Butterfly or any other leftists running off to live there. So why all the hard-ons about the west? Jealous of a non-ideal, non-perfect system that just so happens to work? I don't know. I don't get it.

Deomcracy doesn't work yet in Asian countries.

as at least Marcos could slowly build his billions over 20 years - Estrada, Aquino and all the other elected officials have to do it in 5 years. Shakedowns rise exponentially to equal that.

Suharto had 20 years. President Megawati's husband was thieving everything he could find in the years I was in Jakarta, before the electorate kicked her out.

But it will work - one day. If given a chance to mature.

In Africa and the Middle East. It never will, they're even more bent.

They basket cases.

The only way they can be saved is to allow themselves to be recolonized - and that won't happen.

African Governments are cashing in bigtime now with the Chinese who are bribing them blatantly to get minerals concessions.

We are not bequeathing Democracy to Iraq.

We don't even have true representative democracy in our own countries. (Even though we now have the technology to have more referenda and unintermediated democracy)

We just elect a party which makes promises to us, then breaks them all, and does what it likes for 4-5 years.

In the third world, it means that 'here today gone tomorrow' politicans only have 5 years to steal a fortune instead of 30.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah okay fine, western and asian democracies aren't perfect, have their fair share of corruption, and could be made a lot better with some urgently needed changes in the political systems.

But this isn't the real question, because dictatorships and militant theocracies are equally if not more corrupt, and far less from perfect.

The real question is do the democratic systems work for the vast vast majority of people who live, work and exist in them?

The only logical answer is yes.

Can the same be said for governmental systems in all the truly messed up lesser nations like Syria, Israel/Palestine, lebanon, Iraq, Iran, almost anywhere in Africa, (fill in the blank)-istan, North Korea, Cuba, Indonesia, etc.?

The only logical answer is no.

They didn't build the Berlin wall to keep the people out. Right? You don't see people immigrating by the millions to Iraq, Iran, etc., like they do to the US, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, etc. There must be something good going on there.

I don't see Butterfly or any other leftists running off to live there. So why all the hard-ons about the west? Jealous of a non-ideal, non-perfect system that just so happens to work? I don't know. I don't get it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whilst agreeing in general with what you are trying to say, I think you've cast your fishing net just a little too far here.

Israel has been a well functioning parliamentary democracy since the modern States independence in 1948, with Constitution and laws based upon the previous United Nations mandate holder's Great Britain.

Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East. A factor of considerable importance when signing peace agreements: How can the democratic State of Israel sign a peace agreement to guarantee the security of its people with another state whose system is not democratic and whose constitution, character and foreign policy can be changed by an single assassin's bullet?

I'd agree somewhat an islamic state in Iraq is not what the world needs- I'll hope it turns out differently.

I guess democracy is great....but it doesn't seem that too many countries are real excited about the US coming there and creating a US style democracy for them....S. Vietnam is a good example....seems like they kind of resist it....wonder why? Seems like if a country wants to be democratic at all then they want to make their own style of democracy....which is most always looked down upon by alot of westerners as being inferior or not even a democracy at all. It seems like the wonderful benefits of American style democracy are a well kept secret on the international political scene.

Seems like if a country wants to be democratic at all then they want to make their own style of democracy....which is most always looked down upon by alot of westerners as being inferior or not even a democracy at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so?

Examples?

Deomcracy doesn't work yet in Asian countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was referring primarily to Japan, but your point is well taken.

Israel has been a well functioning parliamentary democracy since the modern States independence in 1948, with Constitution and laws based upon the previous United Nations mandate holder's Great Britain.

Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East. A factor of considerable importance when signing peace agreements: How can the democratic State of Israel  sign a peace agreement to guarantee the security of its people with another state whose system is not democratic and whose constitution, character and foreign policy can be changed by an single assassin's bullet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I generally agree with what you say and didn't mean otherwise when I put in "Israel/Palestine" in my post. My point was that the country is still relatively unstable because of the problems with the Palestinians. I think Israel has mostly tried to do the right thing, but has often failed because there is such a radical element within their people that hates the Palestinians as much as many Palestinians hate them. Their radical element, just like radical islamic militant elements, has been their own worst enemy. I don't know how or if peace can ever be made until these radical elements are knocked down a couple notches in the power structure.

I guess democracy is great....but it doesn't seem that too many countries are real excited about the US coming there and creating a US style democracy for them....S. Vietnam is a good example....seems like they kind of resist it....wonder why?  Seems like if a country wants to be democratic at all then they want to make their own style of democracy....which is most always looked down upon by alot of westerners as being inferior or not even a democracy at all.  It seems like the wonderful benefits of American style democracy are a well kept secret on the international political scene.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Democracy is not a rubber stamp (the people are voting, it's OK).

Democracy involve many inter-active parts. Some of which are:

- a free voting system

- a representative parliament

- separation of powers (executive, legislature, justice)

- the democratic education of the citizens (which must be constant and takes time - if not generations)

Failure to ensure the last two points have been causal factors in e.g. the "democratic" state of Nazi Germany and other false democracies.

If democracy ever fails in the west it will be because of the final point.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill

Israel has been a well functioning parliamentary democracy since the modern States independence in 1948, with Constitution and laws based upon the previous United Nations mandate holder's Great Britain.

Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East. A factor of considerable importance when signing peace agreements: How can the democratic State of Israel  sign a peace agreement to guarantee the security of its people with another state whose system is not democratic and whose constitution, character and foreign policy can be changed by an single assassin's bullet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I generally agree with what you say and didn't mean otherwise when I put in "Israel/Palestine" in my post. My point was that the country is still relatively unstable because of the problems with the Palestinians. I think Israel has mostly tried to do the right thing, but has often failed because there is such a radical element within their people that hates the Palestinians as much as many Palestinians hate them. Their radical element, just like radical islamic militant elements, has been their own worst enemy. I don't know how or if peace can ever be made until these radical elements are knocked down a couple notches in the power structure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not agree.

Israel as a democratic state is no more unstable than the USA post 911, or post the start of the Iraqi War; is no more unstable than the UK under attack from its own citizens in the Irish troubles.

I think your assumptions are based upon the observations of the Israeli problem from a Palestinian viewpoint. This is not to accuse you of being a Palestinian supporter, but to point out a common error that is often made even though the observer may be sympathetic to Israel.

Because there may be the odd fanatic (anti Arab) in Israel it is assumed that the lack of sympathetic policy towards the Palestinians has its basis in this point of view.

Israel's foreign policy is guided by one goal only: the guaranteed security of the State of Israel.

Whether there is to be a peace treaty with Iraq or a recognition of a Palestinian state, the answer is always evaluated by asking will this action guarantee the security of the State of Israel.

Because those who might represent "the other side" do not come from a democratic tradition this answer has again and again been - no.

(reserve the right to add to this - but most leave the computer for a couple of hours)

They're going to have a Civil War now in Iraq anyway, it seems unstoppable. Today's events just reinforce that.

Semi-pointless us discussing hypothetically whether UK/USA should have gone in. They're there and thats that. The country is going to Balkanize.

Difference between Shias and Sunnis?...I hear its so, so tiny as to render it almost nonsensical.

I don't see Butterfly or any other leftists running off to live there. So why all the hard-ons about the west? Jealous of a non-ideal, non-perfect system that just so happens to work? I don't know. I don't get it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe because we became a consumer society before them and we have more money to spend on "frugtile" things and will not work for less ?

There are also examples of economically successful non-democratic countries. Singapore comes to mind. I think you are confusing wealth, prosperity and democracy. Sometimes they come in pair, but not always.

Hong Kong has done ok too.

Never been a democracy.

They're going to have a Civil War now in Iraq anyway, it seems unstoppable. Today's events just reinforce that.

Semi-pointless us discussing hypothetically whether UK/USA should have gone in. They're there and thats that. The country is going to Balkanize.

Difference between Shias and Sunnis?...I hear its so, so tiny as to render it almost nonsensical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agree. As much as I hate the Americans for being invaders, I would hate to see them leave at this stage. First they need a good spanking ala Vietnam so they can be reminded that their shit does stink. Secondly, the next Sepp prez will think twice before invading another country illegally. So I guess this war was not all waste at the end. It will also force the Euro fags to put their sh1t together and form a real European Army to take over world police duty. America is no longer providing solutions to the world, they are only creating problems. It will take a decade for most Americans to ack their current situation. For now they are too busy fighting hurricanes and high gasoline prices.

Bottom Line:

Ask 'Joe Six Pack' whether he would rather live in a Democracy or under Idi Amin or Saddam?

That's why it's a Noble Cause...

Hong Kong has done ok too.

Never been a democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yep, that's even a better example.

Ask 'Joe Six Pack' whether he would rather live in a Democracy or under Idi Amin or Saddam?

oooh ooh, let me answer.

he'd rather live in a Democracy.

So why can't we make Tibet and Myanmar and Saudi democracies too then? Why pick just on Iraq?

The Tibetans wouldn't become insurgents, nor would the Burmese, they really would welcome the coalition.

<Answer: Because the USA and UK isn't there to bequeath Iraq democracy. It never was the true reason. They just spout it because it sounds so noble.>

Ask 'Joe Six Pack' whether he would rather live in a Democracy or under Idi Amin or Saddam?

So why can't we make Tibet and Myanmar democracies too then? Why pick just on Iraq?

Perhaps it's something to do with terrorist-exporting regimes & OIL?