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."
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.
The point is that the Declaration stated the principles by which slaves were going to be freed, first in the North and later in the South.
As for Jim Crow, that was a violation of those rights and again, the principles of the Declaration were the ones appealed to end those abuses.
To have a Representative gov't, you have to have a moral foundation to build on.
Voting means very little without that.
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.
The citizens have no property rights, they only own what the Government allows them to own.
they are still a largely divided people along ethnic and religious lines.
Only the presence of U.S. forces is keeping them from going at each other to avenge past wrongs.
And by the way, Webster's defines the word 'democracy' as "Government exercised either directly by the people or through elected representatives."
So?
A democracy can be direct, with people voting on each issue as they did in Athens, or it can be indirect, with people electing Representatives to vote for them.
That still doesn't change the fact that a Democracy is not a Republic, which guards against direct elections with checks and balances.
In our nation, we have different branches of government to keep the people from acting directly and immediatly in a democratic manner by simple majority rule.
Yet, artificially forcing the Iraqis to reach a definitive agreement on fundamental issues—such as autonomy for Kurdish and Shi’ite areas (federalism), the role of Islam and women in Iraqi society, and the fate of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk—will likely make any Iraqi Constitution as irrelevant as those of neighboring Arab states. On paper, many Arab states have liberal constitutions, but they do not have the political culture or institutions to sustain an open political system. If Iraq doesn’t descend into civil war quickly, perhaps the administration can pull off this façade and exit Iraq with some dignity.
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=7049