[fortheDeclaration]

We had slavery for the first hundred years of our country’s existence and Jim Crow for the next hundred years. Given that Iraq has started off with no slavery, no Plessy vs. Ferguson type segregation and with every citizen, including women, having the right to vote, I would say that the Iraq citizenry are doing fairly well in grasping the important particulars of democracy.

We also had property rights and slavery was always in contradiction to the principles of the Declaration.

Grasping Democracy is not the issue, grasping the idea of that the rights of the minority must be protected by the majority is.

That is why the Founders were anti-Democratic and constructed a Republic with checks and balances to ensure that the rights of the minority would not be violated.

Do not forget that Hilter was elected to power and as soon as he gained it, he suspended all rights.

Chavez just attempted the same thing in Venezuela and was thankfully narrowly defeated.

[vbmoneyspender]

slavery was always in contradiction to the principles of the Declaration

I am sure that contradiction was a great comfort to the people who were slaves for the first hundred years of our country's existence and second class citizens for the next hundred years. With regard to Iraq, its citizens have property rights, a representative democracy and no slavery or segregation - which means they are a couple of centuries ahead of where we started.

And by the way, Webster's defines the word 'democracy' as "Government exercised either directly by the people or through elected representatives."

[PVT4evr]

Hitler was not elected to power, he was appointed Chancellor. The elections that followed brought the Nazi Party to power and were highly questionable.