Where do you get this idea?

I think Americans, especially, see the two as commensurate, which is a false perception. Americans think that Democracy will bring about liberty — a non sequitor, because democracy can bring about the proscription of certain liberties, regardless of the ramifications or the consequences.

According to political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, the most liberty is enjoyed under the reign of a benevolent and absolute monarch, because he will ensure that no tyranny of the masses develops; he will ensure peace and stability throughout the land.

So, to answer the question, we value liberty and democracy equally, because we see them as part of a whole. A good illustration is this epithet: the A-rabs hate the liberty-loving peoples of western democracies.

All the while, under the guise of national security, civil liberties are truncated and violated in the name of the state.

Now, I also believe that democracy is probably the least likely form of government to become corrupt and disfunctional, but that doesn’t make it a worthwhile end in and of itself.

Also, it is pretty obvious that most people value safety above all else. Safety, security, and stability will trump any idealistic notions of democracy or liberty for the people of Iraq, so the debate is just academic.

It also poses an interesting hypothetical–which do we value more: Democracy, or liberty? In some places they seem to go together and even compliment each other, whereas in others they can conflict.

Malaki is tainted by so many things. He is tainted by his relationship with the US, his failed administration, and the complete lack of security that continues under his leadership.

I don’t really like Sadr all that much, so I keep hoping that there is someone else in the country who could take up the nationalistic dictatot leader mantle. It would be good if there were someone as secular as Saddam was. Ah, the good ol’ days.

Maliki (and U.S. military) still doesn’t have Baghdad under control (Sadr City has erupted into violence, again).

Here’s a question: Who is better for “Iraq,” Maliki or Sadr, assuming relative autonomy is reserved for Kurds?

All of this, btw, was more or less foreseen since before the war started.

Can we get some rope here? I’m itching to hang a few certain elected officials and their lackeys.

The Iraqi society is so entrenched with hardcore Islamic law that it is foolish to think that they will voluntarily and peacefully accept Western ideas like toleration and women’s rights. They might be forced to accept those ideas under a dictator like Saddam.

It seems sick to say this, but Saddam was probably the best-case scenario for Iraq. A US occupation and puppet government ranks pretty close to the aboslute worst-case scenario.

Also, I think it is just a matter of time before a successor to Saddam comes to power. Maybe Sadr, maybe Malaki, maybe some other leader that we don’t know yet. But eventually, the people of Iraq will support a strong dictator who promises real stability after the US and the “democratic” government continue to utterly fail to deliver on that promise.

As a bit of criticism, you wrongly conflate the Shi’ites with the Sahwa movement, which is a Sunni phenomenon. Sahwa is more related to Wahhabiist movements, like the Saudi government. Shi’ite Islam actually has a more enlightened attitude toward women (relatively of course). For example, in Tehran, capital of a Shi’ite theocracy, women vote, drive cars, have no curfew, and walk the streets in tight jeans and high heels, albeit with a headscarf on as well. Shi’ite Islam takes a different tone toward women as a result of how they succession to the caliphate should have done, through the blood of Muhammed by his daughter Fatima.