70% voter turnout in Iraq in the last election, (statistic from Canadian human rights organization) with the sunni minorities taking greater interest. Thats a greater percent than both the U.S. and Canada. Can one assume, from this data, that the Iraqis are IN FAVOR of a democracy? It seems to me that they want a democracy to take hold and prosper. Is war working?

Well I must say, that IS a very impressive turnout... That many people made it out to vote despite the threat of violence against them. I think we in the rich western nations should take this as an example! We take our ability to vote for granted, and although I believe theres problems with the system and it could be a lot better, the apathetic opinion many people have is sh!t. Now on another note, where exactly are you trying to go with this? Of COURSE the Iraqi's are in favour of a democracy! Just sounds like you're trying to make some weak justification for war.

how does that make them in favor of it? they don't have a choice, we are forcing this democracy on them. just as we are forcing our ideals on them, of course everyone wants a say in their gov't, but forcing a democracy on people seems wrong to me. and once again War is never a good thing in my eyes, killing people is bad plain and simple. sometimes its what you have to do, but this time I don't believe it was.

Lets say Iraq has a working democracy in 5 years, and lasts for 200 or so years, or longer in the case of ... lets say... Turkey. And lets say 50,000 people die in order to achieve this. Do you have any idea how many people have died in Turkey proper (due to waring factions and different religious beliefs) in the last 300 years? Few and far between compared to the rest of the Islamic world. Muslims killing Muslims has occured on a MASSIVE scale for thousands of years. THese factions differ in beliefs, and war and killing was the only answer. ISLAMO-FASCISTS KILL THE INFIDELS, THEY WILL NOT COEXIST!!!!!! Turkeys leader, Mustafa Kemal, saw that Islam had a problem and secularized his country (area), democraca-cising (personal vernacular) it because of this fact. He stated that, "the civilized world is far to ahead of us. We have no choice but to catch up. It is time to stop non-sense, such as 'should we or should we not wear hats?' We shall adopt hats along with all other works of WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Uncivilized people are doomed to be trodden under the feet of the civilized people." Hats were more than just a symbol: because of their brims, they interfered with the prostrations that were and are an essential element of Muslim prayer. By outlawing turbans and mandating hats, Ataturk (Kemal) was striking at the very heart of Turkish Islamic society. This is what we (AMerica and Brit) are attempting to do. We may fail, We may succeed, only the future will tell. BUT... If George W. Bush creates a democracy and the Iraqi people begin (and continue) to handle dissagreements with laws and the legislature (like America) MILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF LIVES WILL BE SAVED!!!! Peace in the middle-east is ONLY posible with democracy. If you have any other means, WE WOULD ALL LOVE TO HEAR IT. Man has pondered this for ages. War is evil and horrible, but the ends DO justify the means... More specifically: How much evil (war) is necessary to beget good (peace thru democracy)? I and my fellow AMericans belive and understand that innocent deaths are necessary for democracy. Nearly half of Americans agree with this philosophy... and know that the dark days of war lead to the bright days of peace... LASTING PEACE! Take WWII as an example. The world community requires that the 'ancient middle-east end and transform into something similar to Turkey. i.e. Lets say al queda detonated a nuke in Los Angeles or NewYork and it was later known that this came from one of the Islamic states... Lets say it happened again and again. There is no question in my mind, and yours aswell, that America would likely glaze the entire middle-east! Syria, Iran, Iraq, Eqypt, etc. Make no mistake... This would happen. The american people stand and fight! THEY WOULD DEMAND IT! THE POLITICIANS WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO RESPOND TO THEIR DEMANDS! Bush is setting in place an alternative to the million, possibly billions, of deaths that would result. Bush is demanding in a way that they get out of the 600ad's and into the 2000's. Their is no alternative. Can you think of a better way?

Yeah pull your fckin head outta the sand and quit thinking that the only way to do things is to kill everyone before they kill you. That jus doesn't work

You wrote: "quit thinking that the only way to do things is to kill everyone before they kill you. That jus doesn't work " Nice dodge to my question. You answer my lengthy, detailed questions with an childish insult followed by a one-liner. Youre an 'educated liberal' Canadian... right? And Im an 'uneducated American redneck'... right? With that superior socialized Canadian education, re-read my previous entry and ANSWER/RESPOND to my arguments/questions!!!!!! Firstly and repeatedly: Explain to me, with your vast knowledge of all things 'middle-east', how you and your country would handle islamo-fascists and the middle-east problem? Secondly: Where in my previous entry did I suggest or condone "kill(ing) everyone..." How should/would you/youre country deal with the middle-east and its unquestionable problems? Thirdley: Lets compare and contrast how Canada and America deal with the middle-east... Tell me what your country has done to solve the entrenched and ongoing problems there?

Posted by: mogul_masher how does that make them in favor of it? they don't have a choice, we are forcing this democracy on them. just as we are forcing our ideals on them, of course everyone wants a say in their gov't, but forcing a democracy on people seems wrong to me. and once again War is never a good thing in my eyes, killing people is bad plain and simple. sometimes its what you have to do, but this time I don't believe it was.

you really make it hard to make bush look good don't you? i would hardly say that democracy was forced on these people. maybe they didn't embrace it the way that we expected them to, but 70% turnout? those people risked their lives to vote, and you say that we've forced this upon them. its the oposite, how democratic would it be to force someone into a voting booth? they risked "being shot so they could vote", not "voting in fear of being shot"

Agreed.

I think its obviously a good thing that democracy has been planted in Iraq, any democracy is better than a dictator. However, you keep referring to the problem of Islamofacists, but planting democracy in Iraq doesn't solve that problem. Saddam kept Islamofacism out, at least out of the government, while he was in power. But now, without proper rule over the past nearly three years, these islamofacists have invaded the country and are keeping a steady insurgency going, with the help of the pissed off population. So now they have the ability to gain power through election. Basically, my point is that planting democracy doesn't solve the problem, its only a system of government. Democracy has no control over what the ruling ideology is. If Islam gains power through election in Iraq, then you've not only not fixed the problem, you've made it worse.

Koot, How would YOU have handled Iraq?

Uh right, handle that big WMD problem... Last I checked they STILL haven't found any supposed weapons of mass destruction. Try checking in your backyard, you'll find an awful lot more there.

So, you would have left Saddam in power? Done nothing? Let the U.N. handle it? WHAT WOULD [b]YOU[/b] HAVE DONE?

Man are you fckin joking? There wasn't a threat, the media drummed it up and idiots like you are obsessed with it like a catholics blind faith.