[Iq75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US might be semiOK with dictatorship a la the shah or the saudi (especially since at the moment the things are so messy that they mostly just want a decent way out of there) as long as they could control or work with the dictator. BUT they would not be ok with a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state (a la sadr, Iran, taleban) because they would nationalize the oil and challenge israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and let's not forget stoning or murdering women accused of adultery, imprisoning or executing homosexuals, and denying non-Muslims and women the equality of civil rights held by Muslim males.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right of course.

But i believe that for the current administration of US those are all at best secondary objectives.

BTW all of those things are horrible of course, but it's a slippery slope when a white man goes into different countries telling how people there should run their lives.

Obviously i would like to see a chance in the things that you listed, but beond that should we even try to actively chance their societies? We can of course tell them that we see democracy as a best way to interact in society, but if they want to live in a dictatorchip should'nt we just let them?

This whole "export of democracy" allways brings imperialism and crusades into my mind (Bush W, even actually used that word in one of his speaches).