I think that people, especially oppressed people, can make mistakes. They might elect leaders who are bad for them. That, however, is their inalienable right. The phrase "too ignorant to handle democracy" doesn't occur in my vocabulary, or else I'd be agitating for UN occupation of Washington. You put that phrase in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. Now, is there anything unclear about that?
I wasn't even addressing whether the US should or shouldn't permit democracy in Iraq. Of course they should. But they won't, for the reasons given. Maybe it's true that the newly enfranchised would vote liberal instead of installing Islamist leaders. That's not really the nut of it. Because either way, you can bet that any democratically elected leadership in Iraq would also be nationalist. That means Iraqi oil for Iraqis. That's the one thing that Washington can't allow.
So let me ask you something. So what if democracy in Iraq does mean an Islamist government? Does that mean the US shouldn't allow it? That we should go in and install a new Saddam, as we've done before, there and in countless other places? I don't think Islamist/not-Islamist is the crucial thing here. I think common decency demands that Washington mind its own business either way.
---
What others say about boorite!