Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

In democracy all people should have the equal right to decide how a society is run.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an impossibility in democracy (at least in any of its current forms) as the act of governing takes the decisions out of individuals hands and puts them in the hands aof a few people who make decisions for all.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow you; would you elaborate please?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is if you live in country where the government respects all people's rights, and not just those of bearded devout males, provides due process of law, etc., etc.,

Then you should be able to say that your government is better than the other's. Western government is better than what they are serving in the Middle East, and the Middle East would be better off in the long run if they had Western governments. Saying different is just trying to be apologistic & PC. It's also cowardly, because the governments in the Middle East, and now Africa, are what is causing terrorism as we have it today.

Don't get me wrong, America has screwed up in Iraq. But Gearge Bush was right when he said it wasn't going to be easy. Where he screwed up was that he tried to take the easier route anyways because of the upcoming re-election campaign.

[Dan.]

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. The only thing that makes government "good"--note not better or worse--is the consent of every individual. If all of group A consents to a "Western" type government, but then all of group B consents to a different government, both are equal. One is not better or worse than the other.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. The only thing that makes government "good"--note not better or worse--is the consent of every individual. If all of group A consents to a "Western" type government, but then all of group B consents to a different government, both are equal. One is not better or worse than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using your example, what percentage of people consent to the governments presently existing in the middle east? And a government that condones stoning women for adultery, or other forms of honor killings, is worse than one that doesn't. Governments that have separation of church and state are better than ones that don't. Western democracy is better than totalitarian dictators that murder to stay in power. Please argue differently, so that you can return the favor and allow me to read "the dumbest thing I ever read."

Oh, and btw, you are being a PC-apologist as well.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow you; would you elaborate please?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is if you live in country where the government respects all people's rights , and not just those of bearded devout males, provides due process of law, etc., etc.,

[/ QUOTE ]
Just a nitpick, this certainly isn't something inheritant in democracy.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Using your example, what percentage of people consent to the governments presently existing in the middle east? And a government that condones stoning women for adultery, or other forms of honor killings, is worse than one that doesn't. Governments that have separation of church and state are better than ones that don't. Western democracy is better than totalitarian dictators that murder to stay in power. Please argue differently, so that you can return the favor and allow me to read "the dumbest thing I ever read."

Oh, and btw, you are being a PC-apologist as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, did I say that people consented to the present governments in the Middle East? Nope, doesn't look like I did. All I said was no government is inherently better than any other and, in fact, cannot be since governments cannot be "better" than another, or can't you read?

[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).

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow you; would you elaborate please?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is if you live in country where the government respects all people's rights, and not just those of bearded devout males, provides due process of law, etc., etc.,

Then you should be able to say that your government is better than the other's. Western government is better than what they are serving in the Middle East, and the Middle East would be better off in the long run if they had Western governments. Saying different is just trying to be apologistic & PC. It's also cowardly, because the governments in the Middle East, and now Africa, are what is causing terrorism as we have it today.

Don't get me wrong, America has screwed up in Iraq. But Gearge Bush was right when he said it wasn't going to be easy. Where he screwed up was that he tried to take the easier route anyways because of the upcoming re-election campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and I don't have any problem with saying that Wester-stylen governments are better than Middle Eastern-style and/or Shari'a governments.

I think we are talking past each other here, because what I was trying to point out is that it is a mistaken and often hidden presumption on the part of Westerners who think that there must be something "wrong" with people in the Middle East if those people are not amenable to Western-style democracy. Iron81 made a comment and another poster semed to think it might imply that he thought there was something "wrong" with Middle Easterners or with Iraqis. But saying that large groups of Middle Easterners will not take to Western-style democracy, does not imply that there is anything "wrong" with those people; it's just stating a likely fact.

The truth is, they were raised in a culture that is so very different than ours, that it would be the exception rather than the rule to find Middle Easterners (except Israelis) who really believe in and would support Western-style government. It's not an insult at all to state or imply such, and it doesn't mean there is anything "wrong" with those people. This is a whole different matter than whether or not Western-style governments are better than Middle Eastern-style governments (and I think Western-style governments are definitely better and can be stated as such without apology).

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that those are secondary motivations or objectives for the Bush administration. I just didn't want it to be left out since I think it is important to keep in mind what Shari'a governments are really like.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that those are secondary motivations or objectives for the Bush administration. I just didn't want it to be left out since I think it is important to keep in mind what Shari'a governments are really like.


[/ QUOTE ]

They are not secondary objectives for bush, or anyone else in DC. Politicians absolutely do not care about this stuff. Prove me wrong. Show me a case where the US did anything substantial solely for the purpose of improving human rights elsewhere. There is NO precedent. The government doesn't work like this. It never has and never will. The state simply does not embody humanitarian or altruistic values.

We could send a friendly letter to turkey to tell them to stop jailing publishers all the time and they would probably listen. However, we won't even do that.