| Author |
Message |
    
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 287
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 8:28 pm: | 
|
Could someone explain why Americans are dying for the establishment of a parliment in Iraq and Afghanistan? I thought our system of democracy was the foundation for world domination? Why can't they have a Congress with a House of Representatives and Senate, a President who serves 4 years and a Supreme Court. Why can't they have the pleasure of an electoral college? Also, why are we allowing religious influence in these newly "democratic" societies. If we are going to send our youth to die for democracy - shouldn't it be our form of democracy? Afterall isn't it the best?
I really am interested in hearing from those of you who get this war sh*t!!! |
Wordsmith
Citizen
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 19
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 9:03 pm: |
|
The correct spelling is parliament.
I know what you’re thinking: it’s so easy to make a typo when you’re posting something in real time, why can’t you just lighten up? But I have a hard time letting a misspelling go when it’s in the title of a thread.
As for your political message, why do we need to pursue world domination through our form of government? Isn’t it good enough that we make them all speak English to us?
Yours,
Ms. Wordsmith
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5539
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
The wish is for representative government. The House and Senate in the US were inspired by the UK's parliament, with the Senate being drawn from the House of Lords. It was after many years that the Senate actually was elected by direct vote of the public.
However you arrange this government -- Presidents and Veeps, or Prime Ministers and Presidents -- is up to Iraqis. Same with a legislative body, where it could be two houses or one.
We can't dominate free nations. We can prevail and be more powerful, but that's about as far as you can go. For instance, I don't think we can dominate France, nor would we want to.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11229
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:21 am: |
|
While I think MF's post is a little tongue in cheek, the institutions we have were very much the result of a series of compromises between large states and small, northern states and southern states, etc. Luckily the late 18th century was not a religious time, so the religious differences between the various denominations were able to be worked out.
Hopefully the Iraqis will come up with their own compromises based on their own differences in a similar manner. |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 288
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
Thanks Wordsmith for the correct spelling - I tend to be an old schooler (bad typist - can't even use a blackberry!).
"We can't dominate free nations."
What a crock! The US forced it's form of government on Indian Nations during the 1930's. It has been a complete failure for Indian people and continues to create dissension and dysfunction.
My original question was a little tongue in cheek. However, since the Iraq political class continues to avoid creating a government, wouldn't it have been easier to impose a Congress and have Presidential elections just like we do here? "Culture Shmulture" the US has done it before! Why are the neo-cons so complacent about the delay in democracy?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13695
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
What kind of parliament are we seeking to form? And why is that 'a' there in the middle of the word? I always want to pronounce it, rendering the word with four syllables.
In the UK, the dominant party of parliament chooses the prime minister. As I see it, it's easier to set up this form of government. Ours, by contrast, virtually seeks controversy, by allowing congress and the president to be from opposing parties. The benefit is that, in theory, no one goes too far, and everyone has sto compromise. The downside is that nothing gets done thoroughly enough, and there's a lot of acrimony along the way.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5540
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 1:09 pm: |
|
maplewood fan -- as regards India, are you saying we could force a solution the Kashmir and order them to abandon all their nuclear weapons? That would be domination. Can we pressure and coax due to our power? Absolutely. "Dominate" I think isn't accurate.
The crock is that neo-cons or cons are complacent about the Iraqis roadblock on the issue of the Prime Minister there. Are you suggesting we 'dominate' and force a nominee all parties agree to? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2794
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 1:53 pm: |
|
I think the goal is to have one nation under a groove.
 |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 290
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:24 pm: |
|
CJC, wow, to think I have to explain Indian and US - to put it more clearly, I meant "Native American Nations". |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4232
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Ohhhhh!!! I'll use those words in a sentence.
1. I was coaxed into doing something unethical.
2. My coercial cable was damaged so I couldn't watch the ball game on T.V. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11234
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Also a parliamentray democracy works better than ours in a country with multiple political parties, which is certainly the case in Iraq.
Even with our, usually, two party system we have situations where someone is elected without a majority such as in 1992 because of Perot and in 2000 because of the electoral college system and Nader. We have managed to survive. However in a newer, more fragile democracy getting through this sort of thing is much more problematical. |
MichaelaM
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 158
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 9:52 am: |
|
A state based on Islam might have a better chance of being seen as legitimate in the region.
Though, interestingly, Saddam Hussein shied away from religion and persecuted fundamentalists until he realized that adapting a fundamentalist stance in some ways could help him. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page