> -----Original Message-----
   > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu
   > [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu]On Behalf Of Gerhard Fiedler
   > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:54 PM
   > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
   > Subject: Re: [OT] London subway and bus bombings 9 am London time
   >
   >
   > Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:
   >
   > > Pure Democracy, otherwise known as "majority rule" is something to be
   > > mightily feared by people who appreciate individual freedoms
   > such as we
   > > have in the US.  In a democracy, the majority can vote to
   > take away your
   > > right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  In a
   > government of
   > > law (which the US mostly still is), this generally doesn't
   > happen due to
   > > safeguards such as the Bill of Rights, three separate but
   > equal branches
   > > of government, etc.
   >
   > When a US-American citizen affirms that the USA is not a
   > democracy and that
   > democracy is something bad, almost evil, I always wonder why it is then
   > that the USA has gone to Iraq to bring democracy to the
   > region. (According
   > to the president at least, that's the reason.)
   >
   > Is this a sinister plot by the government to make them take
   > away even the
   > few individual freedoms they have there? Is this the "hidden"
   > agenda? Do we
   > need to consider this definition of "democracy" when listening to the
   > president, to understand what he is really talking about? :)
   >
   > Gerhard

You know, I wonder the same thing.  After thinking about it a while,
 I think that the "democracy" part the president is referring to is that
 the people, through elected representatives, will get to determine the
 type of government they ultimately install whether it be a representative
 democracy, a republic, a representative theocracy etc. I guess they
 could even decide they're more secure under the slavery of a theocratic
 or secular dictatorship, but at least we gave them a fighting chance.
You can lead a horse to water...

And the president did say we are bringing democracy to Iraq; but he also
 said and I believe that it's important to engage the terrorists "over
there"
 so as to lessen the chance of having to engage them here.  We fought
 a similar protracted "cold war" against Soviet communism and eventually
 won in spite of a world full of naysayers.  It's nice to have a president
that
 actually takes action against our enemies.

Not that I agree 100% with Bush.  I'm mighty pissed that our borders are
 still wide open and that he hasn't done anything about reducing Federal
 spending.

And another thing...  No one brought this up yet but I'm in a mood!!!  This
 was not a war for oil.  But, I wouldn't have a problem if it was.  Who
 developed the oil fields in the first place?  Do you really think the
middle
 east oil field would be pumping like crazy if the Brits and Yanks hadn't
 developed them prior to them being "nationalized" (stolen) by the Mid
 East countries.  And who put out the fires Saddam set in the oil fields
after the US and the Coalition threw Saddam out of Kuwait and liberated
that country?  "Liberated that country"... hmmm seems to be what the US
is becoming known for.  France, East Germany, the former Soviet states,
Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan.  Maybe Syria, Saudi Arabia and North Korea
are next!




-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist