The Iraq War Poll

[Admiral Yi]

Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

Fewer people being gassed and shot.

[Valmy]

Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

They have a democratic and representative system.

To me the fact that the Iraqis are asking us to go and we are leaving is evidence of victory.  It is more of a victory than I could have hoped in the past few years.

[Razgovory]

Well, no.  You can't really claim that Iraq is Democracy when the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence.  Freedom House still labels them "Unfree".  They've been asking us to leave for a long time.  They were just using bombs and bullets before.

[Razgovory]

Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

Fewer people being gassed and shot.

How do you know?  It's unknown how many people died during the Iraq war.

[Admiral Yi]

How do you know?  It's unknown how many people died during the Iraq war.

You didn't ask about the war, you asked about today.  No Khurds being gassed today.

[Razgovory]

Democracy really is better than not democracy. Iraq really is better off today than they were under Saddam. The western way of organizing society and government is objectively superior to the alternatives for the people governed, and yes, it is in fact entirely possible to use force in some cases to remove non-democratic regimes. Certainly not in all cases (of course), but there are too many examples of current, prosperous democratic countries that became that way through some form of intervention.

See Berkut, this is your problem.  You confuse your opinion with an objective truth.  It may even be an opinion I agree with, but I can't say it's objectively true.  Take Mono, he doesn't care one way or another for Democracy.

[Razgovory]

How do you know?  It's unknown how many people died during the Iraq war.

You didn't ask about the war, you asked about today.  No Khurds being gassed today.

No Kurds were gassed in 2002 either.

[Valmy]

Well, no.  You can't really claim that Iraq is Democracy when the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence.  Freedom House still labels them "Unfree".  They've been asking us to leave for a long time.  They were just using bombs and bullets before.

This just tells me your expectations were too high.

Makes sense given what Bush and Blair were saying when the invasion was launched but I would have bet they would either be split in a vicious Civil War or under the thumb of another dictator by now.

[Berkut]

Democracy really is better than not democracy. Iraq really is better off today than they were under Saddam. The western way of organizing society and government is objectively superior to the alternatives for the people governed, and yes, it is in fact entirely possible to use force in some cases to remove non-democratic regimes. Certainly not in all cases (of course), but there are too many examples of current, prosperous democratic countries that became that way through some form of intervention.

See Berkut, this is your problem.  You confuse your opinion with an objective truth.  It may even be an opinion I agree with, but I can't say it's objectively true.  Take Mono, he doesn't care one way or another for Democracy.

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

[Razgovory]

Well, no.  You can't really claim that Iraq is Democracy when the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence.  Freedom House still labels them "Unfree".  They've been asking us to leave for a long time.  They were just using bombs and bullets before.

This just tells me your expectations were too high.

Makes sense given what Bush and Blair were saying when the invasion was launched but I would have bet they would either be split in a vicious Civil War or under the thumb of another dictator by now.

But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

[Tamas]

How do you know?  It's unknown how many people died during the Iraq war.

You didn't ask about the war, you asked about today.  No Khurds being gassed today.

indeed, they are hunted by the Turkish army now 

[Razgovory]

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

What is your contention based on then?

[Valmy]

But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

[Razgovory]

But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

A state not having a monopoly on violence is not a mere imperfection.  It's the cornerstone of a state.  If a militia can just murder you if you vote a certain way, then the democratic government is simply theoretical rather then actual.

[Valmy]

A state not having a monopoly on violence is not a mere imperfection.  It's the cornerstone of a state.  If a militia can just murder you if you vote a certain way, then the democratic government is simply theoretical rather then actual.

Well completely shutting down the militia's was unlikely to happen so I guess we were doomed to failure from the beginning.  Still I think we did pretty well under the circumstances.