a major achievement for democracy

sadam's guilty verdict. does anyone else out there appreciate the hollow irony of a death by hanging sentence serving as a major achievement for democracy in a country riddled with violence? what does bush-43 mean by democracy? he called iraq a democractic country. really? that's what we're calling it these days, when 50 or 60 citizens get brutally murdered? when ordinary citizens cannot really trust the police force, because of a raging infiltration by the militias?

ok. cause i thought its something else ... like CIVIL WAR! lets take a few steps back here. and ask ourselves. can democracy exist there? i mean, really? think ... think ... think ... before answering. i really believe its so complex - politics and society in that the middle east. the entire historical and present-day context we must consider when speaking of this region. the waters seem muddied indeed. what impact would leaving iraq have upon iran? upon gaza? upon israel? and what of staying? does iraq remain one homgenous society? or does it become a confederation of smaller states/cantons/provinces?

and we must always consider that the cultures of the middle east differ markedly from our own. i really believe in the mutual exclusivity, for societies, of fundamentally extreme religious beliefs and democratic principles of social inequality. i venture the assertion that societies such as iraq and iran differ from western societies in that they find themselves hundreds of years behind, in terms of social evolution. so, that said. can that region really become democratic, in the western sense of the word?

what constitutes democracy in any society? did we think south africa had democracy when apartheid remained in effect? likely not. so ... why does removing sadam and staging some elections create a democracy? did the democracies of canada and the usa evolve to their current states in 5 years? NOPE. so ... what's going in iraq? good question. but i doubt any of it constitutes a major achievement for democracy.