Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
If you are right that Bush was wrong that democracy in Iraq was critical to security, then you are wrong about being right that failure of democracy is failure of the mission  |
well that makes perfect sense...
Quote:
|
Personally, I think a failure to establish a secure democracy will lower the level of security we gain from the area - but just about any form of government other than Saddam Hussein will raise the level of security we have in the area.
|
I don't think I can agree with this, ul....pardon the hitler analogy, but it would have been easy to say in the early 1930's that any regime in Germany would be an improvement over that which had preceeded, but as it turns out that wasn't the case....
....and while we're at it, let's also recall that Hitler first came to power as germany was attempting to transform itself into a liberal democracy. That is to say, we still don't know what Iraq is gonna look like down the road, so it's a bit premature to say that it's better than what came before -- things can always get worse.
................
i just don't think US security is necessarily better off because of democracy in Country X, for that begs the question of who Country X might put in power and what such a person or group might do once he's attained the power.....
....Pakistan comes to mind -- The pakistanis are overwhelmingly nutjob crazy, and they have nukes. I dare say that I'm ok with the fact that our ally Mushareff is a military dictator. I've seen polls where 60+% of the folks there think the US is the great Satan and that Bin Laden is the shiznit.
You want those guys voting on a government, and whether they ought to nuke the great satan? I ain't so sure that I do.
cheers