Why democracy in mideast?

[etyler88]

If democracy is the rule of the majority and the majority of the mideast dislikes the USA why would the USA want democracy in the mideast?

[burritos]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 8 2006, 11:29 AM) [snapback]299636[/snapback]</div>

If democracy is the rule of the majority and the majority of the mideast dislikes the USA why would the USA want democracy in the mideast?
[/b]

We don't want democracy in the middle east. We're just using it as cover to extract our oil. It's just not going as smoothly as planned. Go figure.

[SSimon]

My thoughts exactly. The administration probably figured they would install a government that they could control and then squelch any civil uprising with our military presence. If we really wanted to "spread" democracy around the world, it's probably not such a good idea to impose this upon a nation with brute force and a complete lack of concern for international opinion on the matter.

[fshagan]

Democracies don't have to like us to be better neighbors ... France and the US are often at odds on foreign policy issues, and the French hate us. But we get along OK with them overall. I don't anticipate a lot of Frenchmen trying to blow up our buildings.

The goal of more democracies is attractive because of this, even though the implementation hasn't exactly worked the way the Administration thought it would. "Nation building" is very hard to do without totally vanquishing the enemy and then re-building, such as was done in Germany and Japan after WWII. Both are much better states now than they were then for their people, but they may have had their doubts during fire bombings and atom bomb mushroom clouds. I doubt that we could fight and win a war like WWII in today's climate. We lost far too many men fighting in Europe in someone else's war, and today's citizens would not put up with it.

The Japanese attacked us, so the support would be there to fight them. But from our prespective today, if a modern day Hitler had taken over Poland, Belgium, France and the Netherlands, we would sit it out.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 8 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]299636[/snapback]</div>

If democracy is the rule of the majority and the majority of the mideast dislikes the USA why would the USA want democracy in the mideast?
[/b]

Then your assumption is that we should still have redcoats here - still. Poland, Hungry, France, Afghanistan, the Soviet "states", Japan, etc, etc - would still be??

You assume man does not yearn to be free?
How many tens of millions of people died because of theocracies or autocracies - or because of them?????

[Mystery Squid]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 8 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]299636[/snapback]</div>

If democracy is the rule of the majority and the majority of the mideast dislikes the USA why would the USA want democracy in the mideast?
[/b]

it's called spreading the risk...

You don't want one person to be able to fire a nuke off becuase he got pissed off one day.

Of course, I suppose if the whole governing body got pissed off and all decided to fire a nuke off, well, I guess that's that then...

[glenhead]

This is my opinion, plagiarized from several other sources because it seems to make a sort of sense to me.

An elected government, put in place through a form of the democratic process, is considered by "many" in the international governing community to be "playing with the big boys". No matter what the slant of the elected government (Fatah and Hamas are used as examples of not-so-"desirable" slants), they're held to a more civilized standard than dictatorships or authoritarian theocracies. This higher standard allows the other bigger boys in the game to apply more pressure diplomatically and economically. It comes down to if you want to participate in the civilized international community, and have the benefits of such (trade agreements, aid packages, etc.), then you need to act like civilized human beings.

Japan and Germany are prime examples - they were nurtured through a rebuilding process, and are now major players in the global community. Yes, they have their problems, as do all nations, but they're a lot better off economically and stability-wise than they were before. If you consider that it took well over twenty years for Japan and Germany to achieve stability and harmony (for lack of a better word) and earn their prominent places in the world community, it's obvious we still have a long row to hoe with places in the Middle East.

Before Saddam, Iraq was right up there with the leaders in world technology and research; Iran before the Mad Mullahs had some of the best theoretical scientists in the world and several prominent archaeologists and anthropologists. Why not help them build a societal infrastructure that will allow them to once again participate in the international community?

Some ask "why does the U.S. have to do it?" My response to that is "who else has the capability?" It all comes down to the old saw: If not us, who? If not now, when? You and I can make a difference locally - drive our Prii, volunteer our time to help those in trouble or less privileged, etc. I believe we, as human beings, have a responsibility to do so for our fellow man. Our government and our nation can make a difference globally, and have a responsibility to do so. In discussions about this, others have brought up Somalia and other way-out-of-whack areas, and challenged me to explain why we aren't doing more there. My only answer is that you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time - right now, the focus is on Iraq. Let's get farther down the road to stability there before we move on to the next challenge.

Your turn!

[vtie]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Aug 9 2006, 08:45 PM) [snapback]300335[/snapback]</div>

This is my opinion, plagiarized from several other sources because it seems to make a sort of sense to me.
[/b]

I think you raised several valid points. Good old Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".
The only problem is that imo it's very difficult impose democracy to a country from the outside if it doesn't fit into the culture of that country at that moment.

[daniel]

Collin Powell, in an interview, said that the U.S. would remain in Iraq until Iraq had a democratically-elected government friendly to the U.S.. Since a democratically-elected government in Iraq will never be friendly to the U.S., he was saying that we would be there forever.

The U.S. uses the word Democracy as a propaganda tool, but the present administration does not want democracy in the Middle East. It wants governments that will support the U.S. and allow us to have military bases on its territory and sell us oil at prices favorable to U.S. oil companies.

Democratic governments are generally better for regional and world stability. But our present government does not want stability. It wants instability, which it can use to promote fear, and cite as justification for its attacks on Constitutional liberties and the environment. (E.g.: "We have to drill for oil in environmentally delicate areas because "terrorists" may disrupt foreign oil supplies." Or "We have to give the police gestapo-like powers because we have enemies who would hurt us.") Fear is good for repressive governments, and stability undermines fear. Therefore Bush and his cronies want instability, and oppose democracy while giving it lip service.