Debates so far

[checkmate]

As most know, I am a Liberal Democrat. So my bias is out there. I did not have a chance to watch either debate, but I listened to both of them in their entirety. Listening to the debates only, I thought Bush-Kerry was a draw as was Cheney-Edwards. However, even my Republican friends said that Kerry won the debate if you watched in via split screen.

 

In fact, I was surprised about how well Cheney presented himself. I believe Cheney is dead wrong about Iraq and his theory that the US should spread democracy by force to countries perceived as threats. However, he presented his opinion in a very articulate way.

 

Edwards should have addressed the difference between preemptive strike and preventative strike more clearly.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I believe Cheney is dead wrong about Iraq and his theory that the US should spread democracy by force to countries perceived as threats.

59494[/snapback]

 

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but assuming that Iraq becomes a successful democracy (I know, a big ASSUMPTION), you don't think that will have a major positive effect on the West's relations with Iraq's Middle East neighbors? You're not buying into the regional democracy "domino effect?" It's worth noting, by the way, that no two democracies have ever fought against each other in a war, dating all the way back to the ancient Greek city-states.

 

Regarding your other thoughts on the debates, I think you're right that both debates were basically draws, but only in the sense that they now mean nothing and Friday night's debate means everything. I thought Kerry clearly won the first debate and Cheney clearly won the second, in terms of overall performance (cumulative substance and style grades).

[checkmate]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but assuming that Iraq becomes a successful democracy (I know, a big ASSUMPTION), you don't think that will have a major positive effect on the West's relations with Iraq's Middle East neighbors? You're not buying into the regional democracy "domino effect?" It's worth noting, by the way, that no two democracies have ever fought against each other in a war, dating all the way back to the ancient Greek city-states.

 

Regarding your other thoughts on the debates, I think you're right that both debates were basically draws, but only in the sense that they now mean nothing and Friday night's debate means everything. I thought Kerry clearly won the first debate and Cheney clearly won the second, in terms of overall performance (cumulative substance and style grades).

59531[/snapback]

 

I think a democratic government in Iraq will be difficult and take decades to take hold. Initially, Iraqis may choose civilian leaders, but ultimately through elections, religious leaders will be elected. I think whenever a leader is seen as having a direct line to God (or god), it is bordering on a monarchy or dictatorship.

 

I never have been to Iraq, but I worry about imposing democracy rather than the democracy evolving out of the will of the people. I know democracy worked by imposition in West Germany, and as Cheney pointed out, El Salvador, but I think their cultures were more amenable to democracy.

 

I am going on a trip to India in December and am quite interested in the impressions of the people in that country about Iraq and its government. Their revolution was a peaceful one, and to a great extent their government challenges their religious culture. So, I may change my opinion on Iraq.

 

Nonetheless, Cheney is wrong--it is not our place to impose governments on other countries. Self-determination means that the country should choose its own form of government. If Iraq chooses a monarchy, that should be fine. If Iraq chooses an oligarchy, that should be fine.

 

Has anyone ever considered what would happen if Saddam Hussein is elected president of a free Iraq? Will they intentionally keep him off the ballot? If so, is that being democratic, particularly considering he has not been convicted of any crime.