more of the same.....
we hit 2000 today...imagine all of those mothers and fathers, wives, husbands and children lined up.
Bush should have to look every one of them in the eye...
flaming idiot!
A whole lotta nothin' good, if ya ask me. Sure they got 78% but we still have troops over there who've been there way too long.
Iraq still can't defend itself against itself and some estimates say we may be there as long as 10 years. That may be the way Bush wants it (the longer we stay, the more nervous the other countries get) but it's way too long to stay in a place we shouldn'ta oughta been in to begin with.
We installed Saddam, we uninstalled him and put in a replacement government, and frankly, I have no faith that this one is any better than the last one.
I think most Iraqis are tired of the process and chaos leading up to the vote, and would like to take their country into their own hands, even with a constitution that doesn't satisfy anyone completely. The middle eastern bloggers that I follow haven't even commented on the outcome, though one did say, after the numbers of voters had been tallied few days ago, that he thought people were voting for the political process rather than for the document.
To tell the truth, I'm not confident that there will be big changes. The insurgents will continue to insurge, and the majority of Iraqis will try to achieve a peaceful, day-to-day life and hope for the best in the future. It's not my impression that they see any government as anything but daunting, based on the hisory of the last 30 years. And those who might have taken up the cudgels and banners to strike for dramatic change seem to have given up the hope that they had after the invasion, since they've not seen much since that promotes optimism.
The Iraqi bloggers are probably not representive of the population as a whole, they're mostly middle to upper class, while those lower on the totem pole can't afford computers and connections, etc., so my view of the reaction of the general population will only coalesce over the next months.
I am not too moved by the 2,000 figure. If that many US troops had died in the first two or three days of the invasion, then people would have shrugged collectively and said, "Well, it's war. What do you expect?" That many US soldiers have died in a single day many times over in other wars.
Focusing on the US death toll also suggests that the invasion might be justified if only the US were able to lose fewer US lives. Wrong again, I say. Focus, instead, on how wrong it was to invade a country that has not attacked a surrounding country in over ten years.
So voting=democracy? I guess the Iraqis have had democracy for a while now since they always used to have elections for Saddam. Sure, if you ran against him or voted against him you would get killed, but they were elections...
Chocolate pudding, definitely.
Wait, what was the question again?
Gee, BearGuy, we do appreciate your input!
Eh, voting is the easy part. Getting people to accept the whole Winner Take All thing, that's the harder part. It only took the USA a bloody civil war and multple year occupation to finally get the majority to accept the principle, and that was preceeded by several score years of limited participatory republican democracy.
Taming Iraq for the Iraqis will, IMHO probably take at least 5 years and a massive investment of money and troops, of which we're not even prepared to do right now. So it'll probably go on for a few bloody years, we'll pull out, and then it'll all collapse in on itself until militant extremists use the anarchy as a stanging/training area for another WTC style attack, at which point we'll have to invade *again* and end up right where we're at right now.
Unless, of course, Nixon visits Mecca, which would totally change everything.
"That many US soldiers have died in a single day many times over in other wars."
2000 in one day? You're comparing Iraq to D-Day in WW2? Apples and oranges.
And Iwo Jima. And I imagine some other instances.
My point is that measuring whether military action is "worth it" based on the casualties of the attacking country is exceptionally dangerous. Using that argument, it follows that making sure that the US's casualties are low enough justifies attacking/invading another country.
True.
Democracy hasn't arrived AT ALL. A vot has ratified a constitution for a potential Iraqi state. Do you seriously think that the 'insurgents' are going to stop and say "well, that's it for us! There's a constitution now!" This constitution does nothing. I mean, what the hell is it for? Most of the country is without any sort of order - even the Green Zone is hideously unsafe for anyone, and more so than at any time during the 'war'. This isn't the slow march of democracy in the middle east. It's the trot of sheep into an abbotoir.
This constitution does nothing.
That, I think, is a VAST overstatement.
I hated this war, still do. I'm not optimistic about Iraq's chances in the short term, and personally I'd like to see everyone in my government's executive and legislative branches who pushed for this quagmire strung up by his toes and beaten with pointy things. Regardless of party affiliation.
That said, this day carries quite a bit of historic weight for the country, and could -- could -- lay the groundwork for significant change. It's a step in the right direction -- just a step, but that's something. No, the insurgents won't stop. As LarimdaME pointed out, things were bad in this neck of the woods, and we arguably had a more promising start.
But they at least have a start, and good for them for making it this far. Life hasn't handed the Iraqis poop, it's handed them a great big shitstorm, and they're doing a respectable job trying to emerge as a country out from under both the US and the insurgents. So good for them, I sez. May something worthwhile somehow emerge from all the shit they've had to endure.
MCT, you're like a moral beacon. I mean it as a compliment.
It's got to be a step forward, but as they say the litmus test of a democracy is when the government changes peacefully. So we'll see. You have to worry about the lack of civil society - it's not the sort of thing that grows up overnight or in these kind of conditions and democracy without it is hardly sustainable. And it doesn't help when the insurgents murder activists like the secretary of the Union Federation.
.."In general terms, a democracy is a form of government in which the people have the right to control their own destiny. In a democracy the people have the final authority, they have the right to make or at least influence decisions that affect their everyday lives. The term itself comes from the Greek words demos, meaning "people," and kratos, meaning "authority."..
If the 'new democracy' in Iraq is based upon the USA model, then it's a pig in a poke. The lack of "civil society" in Iraq, right now, is a result of USA 'intervention'.
Despite Saddam and cohorts depredations, there was a high standard of education, and an achievable decent standard of living for a greater proportion of the population in Iraq. Far more so than is the case RIGHT NOW for people in the USA. And prior to 'world sanctions' - medical care in Iraq was also second to none.
If the Iraqi people are able to, eventually and in real terms, control their own democratic process, there may be some hope for change. In the meantime, the 'average' Iraqi citizen continues to suffer, and to endure the chaos added to by the appalling ignorance, and smugly insular arrogance of the present USA 'administration'.
Additionally, democracy in the USA certainly apears to function closer to an old-type 'monarchy'than any other political model. The average citizen has little real influence or power in their so called 'democratic process'- other than to cast the occasional vote.
Authority lies with (about) 5% of the population, and they are the very wealthy.
The 'average' citizen in the USA has little or no chance of influencing, much less having any conrol over how their country is run.
For instance, in most national elections in the USA, less than 50% of the population bother to vote. As we all know, only 42% of the population in the USA voted when dubbya Bush was first "elected" President.
The only 'real' freedoms USA citizens appear to exercise are the right to own a gun, the right to be used as cannon fodder in the military, and the right to work for as little as employers can get away with paying, and for as many hours as they so designate.
In present times, the 'average' USA citizen has become afraid even to speak out in public (especially the obvious 'minority groups') against the USA administration and it's policies - for fear of being seen as 'terrorist sympathisers' or 'un-American.'
As an example; over the last two or three years one has found an increasing tendency (in social situations) for those who disagree with present USA policy to first establish what the "outsider's" attitude might be before expressing their opinion. This is very disturbing indeed.
as a "USA Citizen," you certainly nailed me. Excuse me while I go polish my gun and work for as little as my employer can get away with paying, and for as many hours as they so designate.
This is all very accurate, useful and not a bit over the top.
This democracy thing. Wonderful innit? I mean it took European nations hundreds of years to evolve to a position where they were able to cope with the demands and responsibilities of democracy ... and as Jeraboam point out above even now the political sophistication of the US is, in some respects, open to question.
Iraqis, on the other hand, clearly have the sophistication necessary to embrace democracy, peace, freedom and cupcakes almost overnight.
I think Iraqui's should look forward to Starbucks, Home Depot and Walmart. After all, democracy is all about choice.
I'm lovin' it!
Iraqi's even, damn cue you.
In the end, a whole lot of "it wasn't worth it."
And it wasn't.
I tried being a porn beacon. I got arrested
Did jeraboam really just defend Saddam Hussein's leadership of Iraq?
Despite Saddam and cohorts depredations, there was a high standard of education, and an achievable decent standard of living for a greater proportion of the population in Iraq.
If you'll excuse the Godwinizing:
Despite Adolph and cohorts depredations, there was a high standard of education, and an achievable decent standard of living for a greater proportion of the population in Germany.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
His views on US democracy are similarly twisted.
The 'average' citizen in the USA has little or no chance of influencing, much less having any conrol over how their country is run.
Wrong. The average citizen in the USA has little or no desire of influencing, much less having any conrol over how their country is run.
Democracy requires participation. If the people choose not to participate, it's not the fault of the system or the ruling elite. It's a symptom of a comfortable life.
excellent point.
Obviously the point I was attempting to make has been missed somewhat.
Deprecatory humour from the intellectually sophisticated notwithstanding, my comment ("If the Iraqi people are able to, eventually and in real terms, control their own democratic process, there may be some hope for change") was to define an opinion:
That if the democratic 'model' Iraq is at present 'lumbered with' is that of the USA then the chaos and destruction (not quite on the grand scale created in Iraq under the aegis of the USA) is going to continue ad infinitum.
Humorous superiority is all very well but if the 'mote in the god's eye' remains firmly stuck in position, you (sic) will remain unable to see what is glaringly obvious to those of us who have lived a greater proportion of their lives in countries other than the USA.
The people of the Middle East are far more sohisticated and aware than most people in the USA, and certainly more so than the USA 'administration' give them credit for, however at no time did I venture the opinion that they .."clearly have the sophistication necessary to embrace democracy, peace, freedom and cupcakes almost overnight".
Only a miniscule proportion of the followers of Islam are fanatics or terrorists (a similar proportion as are those amongst the followers of Christianity). The majority are horrified by the destructive acts of 'terrorists', and far more disgusted than most "westerners" could imagine.
Laws and 'protective measures' introduced (in the USA for instance) to 'combat terrorism' are nothing but politically motivated palliatives, and must give said 'terrorists' immeasurable satisfaction.
They are now, in effect, controlling millions of lives. Countries who have introduced said 'protective measures' have given them such enormous and visible 'feedback' ..
All I know is that now that they have voted, I feel much safer...
Laughing with you, jccalhoun.
The endorsement of a democratic constitution is an excellent thing. Things could easily have been much worse: an impasse sliding towards outright civil war. At least there are now good grounds for hope.
You must remember that Bush junior did not suddenly attack a peaceful country. The USA had a substantial military involvement in Iraq already, policing no-fly zones and enforcing sanctions. Democratic and Republican administrations agreed, so far as I can see, that the US must intervene to bring about regime change. The difference is that while Clinton's chosen weapons were starvation and destabilisation (he wasn't averse to the odd missile, either), Bush's was direct invasion. You can say in defence of the latter that at least the Bush strategy, however ineptly handled, aims to leave Iraq free, democratic, and prosperous: Clinton merely wanted Saddam out and didn't accept any responsibility for the longer term consequences.
nor the crushing debt and loss of life.
I'm not optimistic about this, mainly because of how disenfranchised the Sunnis are. That 78% approval sounds impressive, until you consider that an entire ethnic group virtually in unison voted against the constitution. That doesn't bode well.
Imagine, in America, if a ballot initiative was voted up by nothing but white people, but every black who went to the polling booth voted against it. Wouldn't that suggest some major trouble with the law?
Democracy is about *compromise.* There's a reason we, and every other democratic country, uses a representative republic system rather than a strict "one man one vote" democracy. It's far too easy for the majority to dominate and oppress a minority. The entire point of the process is that it can protect the rights of ALL - not just whichever group has numerical superiority.
Some of the Sunnis complaints have to do with their loss of ruling power. Others are legitimate worries about their lack of input into the new system. But for the government to succeed, these fears of theirs must be addressed - or else we have merely traded one oppressive, dictatorial ruling class for another.
What lies ahead? Elections, come December. The Iraqis will return to the polls to elect their first permanent national assembly. ("Permanent" in the sense that the institution is permanent under the constitution; the membership will of course change with each subsequent election.)
Up yonder, somebody said "the constitution does nothing." He's right, of course. A constitution, by itself, does nothing. It's just a set of laws under which a government runs.
But here's the thing about this constitution: It represents something no Arab nation has ever had before, ever. It's a document drawn up by the people that establishes a legitimate representative government. That's something that has never existed in any Arab nation. It's history, man. Honest-to-God history.
The constitution does nothing? Sure, true. And by herself, Rosa Parks did nothing either. Except be the first.
The elephant in the room here, of course, is the moral difference between tyranny and democracy. There are those who argue that abolishing Saddam's tyranny and replacing it with democracy wasn't worth the price we paid in dollars and lives; I'm curious what would have been an acceptable price in dollars and lives to those folks. There are also those who argue that overthrowing Saddam and establishing a democratic Iraq was just plain wrong on its face; to those folks I ask, simply, whether they believe that tyranny in any form has a right to exist at all, whether free people have the moral responsibility to resist tyranny wherever they find it. For I suspect that's the point on which we differ.
I dunno, maybe I'm just not cynical enough to sit at the cool kids' table, but reading the preamble of the Iraqi constitution makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. "We are the people of Iraq, who in all our forms and groupings undertake to establish our union freely and by choice." That's really it in a nutshell, you know? Today the Iraqis exist as a nation by choice, not because a hereditary king or some colonial power said they were or because an unaccountable agency drew a border or because a general seized power. They're a nation because they choose to be. And that's about the coolest thing ever.
When our leaders can lie to start a war, and we let them get away with it, even wholeheartedly support it, we've become the problem, not the solution.
That sort of thing wouldn't fly in a court of law if I declared war on you, Jeff. Why should we let our leaders get away with it? Because mistakes happen?
No. If you make a mistake in the real world and people die, then you are put on trial and made to suffer if found guilty. Why should we expect less from our elected officials?
>free people have the moral responsibility to resist tyranny wherever they find it.
When you're finished congratulating yourself on your moral courage, ask yourself whether you are morally entitled to to have a war in some other guy's country. Ask yourself, too, whether there might be other motivations for this war besides Our Righteous Hatred Of Tyrrany- motivations that have to do with profit and power, that are being hidden behind an appeal to democratic ideals.
People who are really, actually free have the moral responsibility to watch out for, and put a stop to, abuses of power comitted by their own governments.
> I dunno, maybe I'm just not cynical enough to sit at the cool kids' table,
But you are naive enough to drink the kool-aid!
There are those who argue that abolishing Saddam's tyranny and replacing it with democracy wasn't worth the price we paid in dollars and lives; I'm curious what would have been an acceptable price in dollars and lives to those folks.
A bold notion - acting on our moral responsibility to replace all tyranny with democracy, regardless of it's cost in dollars and lives. Because there's a lot of it around.
tyr·an·ny (tr-n) n. pl. tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
So we know N. Korea, Libya, Does Somalia have a leader?, Myanmar? . . umm . . . Haiti? Okay, so point being there are a lot of candidates.
Now let me throw out some made-up numbers. To bring democracy to all of the world's countries where there is one leader with absolute power will cost 47 trillion dollars (with a "T") and cost somewhere around 450,000 members of the military, and an unknown (100,000? given N. Korea's nuke(s) - millions?) of civilian lives.
Worth it? Well, speaking from a point of view that democracy is better than tyranny - yes.
Shall we get started then?
Let's take to it's furthest extreme - let's say it bankrupts America (we've got an enormous deficit as it is, so we'd have to sell some things), and wipes out all of its citizens.
Still worth it? Well, all countries are now democratic so - yes.
I'm not buying that perspective. I think it's unrealistic. Is a democratic Iraq good? Yes, absolutely. Is it worth it? No. My friend/brother/daughter and the future of education and our environment were more important that a democratic Iraq. Sad perhaps, but true for me.
I don't know if I'd consider a constitution written at gunpoint by an occupying force to be anything resembling democracy.
… ask yourself whether you are morally entitled to to have a war in some other guy's country.
In an age when you can build a bomb in your country and smuggle it into mine, I'd say yes, without a doubt. The sovereignty of a failed state held together by the oppressive rule of a tyrannical dictator who sponsors international terrorism isn't something that I lose a lot of sleep over.
Look at it this way: When a neighbor's house is burning down, you don't stop to quibble over the ins-and-outs of the local laws governing criminal trespass. You bust down the door and go. Because it's what needs to be done.
My friend/brother/daughter and the future of education and our environment were more important that a democratic Iraq.
Bless you for your honesty. If everybody would just be so direct about it, I think we could all have a much easier time getting along.
Meanwhile, phrases like "at gunpoint by an occupying force" betray a spectacular and depressing ignorance of the facts.
Breaking into the neighbor's house is a world of difference from waging an undeclared war in another country. It's like trying to equate apples and badgers - at best they are both carbon-based.
The reasons given for the war have been proven false and I strongly believe that The President and others knew they were false when they gave them. Even if they believed them, then in the end it winds up being a war based on a series of colossal errors.
We should not be rewarding failure, mistakes or errors, nor should we be covering up for them. We should be harshly punishing them, considering the magnitude.
As to "at gunpoint by an occupying force", what other way is there to characterize it?
We invaded another country to make it democratic.
How very un-democratic.
.. "We installed Saddam, we uninstalled him and put in a replacement government, and frankly, I have no faith that this one is any better than the last one. posted by drivingmenuts at 02:30AM UTC on October 26, 2005" ..
Cheers and salutations for the reality hit Drivingmenuts.
.. "Democracy requires participation. If the people choose not to participate, it's not the fault of the system or the ruling elite. It's a symptom of a comfortable life. posted by rocket88 at 03:31PM UTC on October 26, 2005" ..
Arrant nonsense Rocket88!
It is in fact, a symptom of powerlessness. Those who do NOT vote are those who feel disenfranchised - in short, those who feel profoundly helpless, and that their vote will not make a difference!
It is the 'middle class' who are 'the voting class!'
The USA remains the aggressor on the 'world stage' Their action in Iraq has increased terrorism. It has most certainly NOT added to the safety of USA citizens, nor that of the citizens of other countries.
Post scriptum:
The visual .. "posted by Chyren at 01:59AM UTC on October 26, 2005" ..
The definitive statement indeed.
The reasons given for the war have been proven false
Some folks keep saying that as if it was revealed truth or something. I just don't see it. The reason for the war was that Saddam Hussein was a terrorism-supporting, arms-seeking tyrant who, by the way, happened to be in direct violation of the 1991 cease-fire that ended, sorta-kinda, the Gulf War. Sure, we can quibble all we want about exactly which acts of terrorism he sponsored and precisely which of his weapons programs did what. But the bare facts, that Saddam sponsored international terrorism and that he had unacceptable aspirations, are undisputed.
(Now that I've said that, somebody is sure to assert, bafflingly, that Saddam was a nice old guy or that he never sponsored or harbored terrorism or that he wasn't building weapons or whatever. Have at it. If you seriously believe those things, I won't try to dissuade you, mostly because it would be really boring for both of us.)
As to "at gunpoint by an occupying force", what other way is there to characterize it?
Howzabout honestly? No guns, no occupiers. The constitution was drafted by Iraqis acting of their own free will and ratified by Iraqis who were damned proud of their participation in the process. Believe me, if their constitution had been written at the business end of an M-16, there would have been a hell of a lot less "Allah the merciful" ya-ya in it.
We invaded another country to make it democratic. How very un-democratic.
No offense, but I hardly think that's a very insightful observation. The only just goal of war is a greater peace. "How ironic," mumbles the shallow thinker. Well no, not really. That's just how war is. It's no more ironic than setting fires to keep the forest healthy.
Their action in Iraq has increased terrorism.
But the net safety of the Iraqi people has skyrocketed. Averaged out, Saddam was responsible for somewhere around 70 murders each and every day. (Googling "Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq" will get you sources on that.) Just by pure statistics alone, the average Iraqi is far safer today than he was under Saddam.
I guess a lot of folks don't realize just how bad Saddam really was. The dude admired Stalin, folks. Seriously.
War is peace.
Where have I heard that before?
.. "But the net safety of the Iraqi people has skyrocketed. Averaged out, Saddam was responsible for somewhere around 70 murders each and every day. (Googling "Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq" will get you sources on that.) Just by pure statistics alone, the average Iraqi is far safer today than he was under Saddam." (Jeff Harrel) ..
You have most certainly 'bought the bullshit' JH.
Averaged out, Saddam was responsible for somewhere around 70 murders each and every day.
so that'd be a net gain for iraq, i guess.
less people dying, every day, on average. fucken hell. Brilliant outcome for everyone concerned. Which part of Islamic extremists blowing the crap out of everyone BECAUSE OF THE INVASION is escaping you here? Prior to the invasion, there were no terrorists in Iraq. None. That point's been worked over here time and time again. Now, there's thousands of the fuckers.
I'm totally with you on the 'Saddam was a fuckstick dictator, mass murderer and all-around cunt' part. But there were no Weapons f Mass Destruction, nolinks with al'Qaeda, the West sold him the poison gas and weapons used to 'kill his own people' and urged the Kurds to rise up in resistance (standing idly by while they got slaughtered) Donald fucking Rumsfeld SHOOK THE MAN'S HAND, for chrissakes. What has this war achieved that nothing else did? Apart from the whole Islamist anarchy thing? I mean really. People are still dying, brutally, horribly, UNJUSTLY, every day in Iraq. Is it better that their enemies are masked and do it in the name of God?
Oh, no it's OK - they've got a constitution now.
I expect a 3-way civil war as soon as America (and her lapdog, Britian) pull out.
The Kurds will declare independence and promptly be invaded by Turkey, and the Shias and Sunnis will be at each other's throats for decades.
There will be two winners: Haliburton and the terrorists. Everybody else loses.
You're in favour of an "enduring prescence", then?
Jeff Harrell is not very bright.
Actually, Jeff, have you signed up, yet? I think you should be a patriot and support your country more directly than from behind your keyboard.
Actually, Jeff Harrell provides a valuable service here. He reminds us that, as unlikely as it may seem, there really are those who are still swallowing the whole neocon line, balls and all. I suspect that Jeff either works stateside as a lucrative defense contracter or has supporting relatives who do.
He reminds us that, as unlikely as it may seem, there really are those who are still swallowing the whole neocon line, balls and all.
IMO this metaphor is really unfair to all those folks with advanced fellatio skills.
He reminds us that, as unlikely as it may seem, there really are those who are still swallowing the whole neocon line, balls and all.
IMO this metaphor is really unfair to all those folks with advanced fellatio skills.
He reminds us that, as unlikely as it may seem, there really are those who are still swallowing the whole neocon line, balls and all.
IMO this metaphor is really unfair to all those folks with advanced fellatio skills.
Oh, Jeez, sorry. But it IS a very important message.
Thrice as skilled as your average fellateur.
"Fellateur!" Thaat is soo classy.
I made it up. /proud
Yeah, nice one, tracicle.
Or fellatrice.
Fellatrix.
i do tricks with my fella... how about you?
oh... wait...
Fellatrix sounds like the cereal. And that's just...odd.
Ex.: The president's behavior with his young female intern was fellatricious.
Fellatious.
So where are we going to enforce democracy next? Surely our moral responsibility won't let it rest with just Saddam?
Iran?"I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks," said Blair, who spoke Thursday at a press briefing after a European Union summit near London.
"There has been a long time in which I've been answering questions on Iran with everyone saying to me 'tell us you're not going to do anything about Iran,'" he said.
"If they carry on like this, the question people are going to be asking us is, 'When are you going to do something about this,' because you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon."
It's a slippery slope, innit. Should have been handled by smarter people.
Today the Iraqis exist as a nation by choice, not because a hereditary king or some colonial power said they were
*boggles*
Which part be bogglin' Wizzlof?
The whole sentence is a shit sandwich.
No they went back in time, took the pencil off the unaccountable agency and drew the borders themselves.
Saddam'styranny and replacing it with democracy wasn't worth the price we paid in dollars and lives; I'm curious what would have been an acceptable price in dollars and lives to those folks. A bold notion - acting on our moral responsibility to replace all tyranny with democracy, regardless of it's cost in dollars and lives. Because there's a lot of it around. tyr·an·ny (tr-n) n. pl. tyr·an·nies 1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. So we know N. Korea, Libya, Does Somalia have a leader?, Myanmar? . . umm . . . Haiti? Okay, so point being there are a lot of candidates. Now let me throw out some made-up numbers. To bring democracy to all of the world's countries where there is one leader with absolute power will cost 47 trillion dollars (with a "T") and cost somewhere around 450,000 members of the military, and an unknown (100,000? given N. Korea's nuke(s) - millions?) of civilian lives. Worth it? Well, speaking from a point of view that democracy is better than tyranny - yes. Shall we get started then? Let's take to it's furthest extreme - let's say it bankrupts America (we've got an enormous deficit as it is, so we'd have to sell some things), and wipes out all of its citizens. Still worth it? Well, all countries are now democratic so - yes. I'm not buying that perspective. I think it's unrealistic. Is a democratic Iraq good? Yes, absolutely. Is it worth it? No. My friend/brother/daughter and the future of education and our environment were more important that a democratic Iraq. Sad perhaps, but true for me.