spare a minute to look at the taegu arson attack. who would have thought that one person could be responsible for such a huge loss of life? i pray for the soul of the victims, and their loved ones left behind.


despite the pain caused by such unnecessary and preventable acts as that which happened in taegu, there are still forces in the u.k. that seem hell bent on causing more pain by the use of force in iraq. today i saw a headline saying "leave iraq, britons told" in a manner that suggested an imminent missile strike. the truth is though, the u.k. populace still remains utterly divided on the question of use of force in iraq.


this is a good thing - although my personal feeling is to deplore those who cannot bring themselves to denounce such violence, in a democratic society there should be more discussion and more room for such debate - everyone is entitled to their own beliefs within reason. this division of opinion on the matter of attacking iraq as seen throughout the 'western' world (i say so because i haven't seen anything from korea or japan which indicated that the populace in those countries are remotely interested in what is going on - apathy stemming from geographical distance, one must assume, rather than from any lack of humane sentiment) is a good example of how citizens in the developed countries can, and will, show political willpower within the framework of a democratic society.

but will this demonstration of strong opposition persuade those institutions to adapt their plan of action accordingly? and if they don't change their plans, does this mean participatory/representative democracy is not an ideal platform for expressing the collective will of the individuals within it? no doubt everyone who opposes the war will feel betrayed by their elected leaders if military action goes ahead.


i believe this is a case for the political theorists out there (monsieur widder, take note). as the average person i would of course not have had as much opportunity to think about what is the most desirable political system compared to the political theorists, however i do think that participatory/representative democracy is the only working model so far that we have which is more tolerable than other systems of government. i would not hasten to denounce it on account of some action going forward without my consent - i think it is part and parcel of being a participant in a democracy.


i would be interested to see what other think - perhaps there are those of you who do not agree with my fundamental premise that democracy is a good thing. what do you reckon?