Why try and spread democracy?

[The Green Bean]

I can not understand the fact why the american people feel that every country should be democracized. Democracy will not work in the ME. It will not work in Iraq. It has not work in Iran or Pakistan.

Why do you beleive that democracy is the right way forward? Infact I have noticed that things under the democratic regimes of Namaz Sharif and Benazeer Bhutto were far worse than those under the military dictatorship of Mushrraf.

Is it only becuase america feels safer with democracized countries?

Democracy is not for uneducated corrupt peoples.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I can not understand the fact why the american people feel that every country should be democracized. Democracy will not work in the ME. It will not work in Iraq. It has not work in Iran or Pakistan.

Why do you beleive that democracy is the right way forward? Infact I have noticed that things under the democratic regimes of Namaz Sharif and Benazeer Bhutto were far worse than those under the military dictatorship of Mushrraf.

Is it only becuase america feels safer with democracized countries?

Democracy is not for uneducated corrupt peoples.

I don't agree with your last statement (unless you want to explain it further and I'll reexamine it), but one thing I do know... the wanting for democracy has to come from within or it'll never truly happen.

 

[conjur]

You have to understand the abusive capitalistic ideology behind the people wanting to "spread democracy" (only using that as a justification after WMDs ended up being a complete lie). It's a way for American companies to gain access to natural resources in other countries and profit off of them as well opening add'l markets to sell American goods, thereby increasing revenue for American companies who are in a saturated market in US/Europe.

 

[Strk]

Genuine democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. They also promote things like trade and such.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I can not understand the fact why the american people feel that every country should be democracized. Democracy will not work in the ME. It will not work in Iraq. It has not work in Iran or Pakistan.

Why do you beleive that democracy is the right way forward? Infact I have noticed that things under the democratic regimes of Namaz Sharif and Benazeer Bhutto were far worse than those under the military dictatorship of Mushrraf.

Is it only becuase america feels safer with democracized countries?

Democracy is not for uneducated corrupt peoples.

I don't agree with your last statement (unless you want to explain it further and I'll reexamine it), but one thing I do know... the wanting for democracy has to come from within or it'll never truly happen.

People here (in Pakistan) vote for anything without understanding the core issues. Some are more than happy to vote for $15 (one day's wage) for any given candidate. Besides, most people donot have the time to care about politics.

And I donot wan't democracy in Pakistan. Its america thats wants democracy here. Democracy does not necassarily bring freedom. It only brings a rise in corrupt officials only working for themselves.

Patriotism and education are two prerequisites for democracy.

Most countries are better of living under people than living for themselves. Infact, the human-race can never sustain a true democracy.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Strk
Genuine democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. They also promote things like trade and such.

There is no such thing as a true democracy. Buerocrats exist in all democracies, large or small. America will only be a true democracy when I can vote for my dad instead of someone Ive only seen on TV.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I can not understand the fact why the american people feel that every country should be democracized. Democracy will not work in the ME. It will not work in Iraq. It has not work in Iran or Pakistan.

Why do you beleive that democracy is the right way forward? Infact I have noticed that things under the democratic regimes of Namaz Sharif and Benazeer Bhutto were far worse than those under the military dictatorship of Mushrraf.

Is it only becuase america feels safer with democracized countries?

Democracy is not for uneducated corrupt peoples.

I don't agree with your last statement (unless you want to explain it further and I'll reexamine it), but one thing I do know... the wanting for democracy has to come from within or it'll never truly happen.

People here (in Pakistan) vote for anything without understanding the core issues. Some are more than happy to vote for $15 (one day's wage) for any given candidate. Besides, most people donot have the time to care about politics.

And I donot wan't democracy in Pakistan. Its america thats wants democracy here. Democracy does not necassarily bring freedom. It only brings a rise in corrupt officials only working for themselves.

Patriotism and education are two prerequisites for democracy.

Most countries are better of living under people than living for themselves. Infact, the human-race can never sustain a true democracy.

I don't agree with everything you say, but you're there and I don't know much about Pakistan, so I'll leave that alone. But, my above statement still works regardless.

 

[irwincur]

Yeah, because people inherently are born into this world to be pawns of madmen...

Pathetic. The ideals of Democracy (and Republic - WHICH THE US IS - GET IT F'ING RIGHT) are more about personal freedoms and the electoral process than politics. It is the concept that every man/woman is born free and should be able to control the direction of their own life. It is quite likely the greatest gift politics has given humanity.



PS: Only leftist idiots confuse Democray with Republic.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Yeah, because people inherently are born into this world to be pawns of madmen...

Pathetic. The ideals of Democracy (and Republic - WHICH THE US IS - GET IT F'ING RIGHT) are more about personal freedoms and the electoral process than politics. It is the concept that every man/woman is born free and should be able to control the direction of their own life. It is quite likely the greatest gift politics has given humanity.



PS: Only leftist idiots confuse Democray with Republic.

Actually, it's the right-wingers that scream.. "Power of the Majority" are the ones that confuse democracy and republic.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: irwincur


PS: Only leftist idiots confuse Democray with Republic.

de·moc·ra·cy P Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

People are not confused, they just use the most common term. I suppose somehow the Coulter/Hannity/Rush/O'Rielly right crowd are all specialist on government and can fully explain the intricate differences between a democracy and a republic?

 

[glenn1]

I can not understand the fact why the american people feel that every country should be democracized. Democracy will not work in the ME. It will not work in Iraq. It has not work in Iran or Pakistan.

Why do you beleive that democracy is the right way forward? Infact I have noticed that things under the democratic regimes of Namaz Sharif and Benazeer Bhutto were far worse than those under the military dictatorship of Mushrraf.

Is it only becuase america feels safer with democracized countries?

Democracy is not for uneducated corrupt peoples.

Well, your last sentence would explain why you're against it.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't necessarily agree with the spreading democracy idea, but there is one thing that you have to remember: building a democracy can take a long time. Look at the U.S.: You had settlers coming in the early 1600s. They began to set up their own little town halls and colonial legislatures (later on), but they still took orders from Britain. But when it finally came for a revolution, they built a country more upon the ideals that they had lived with for 150+ years. Countries don't turn into democracies overnight or even in one year if there has never been that kind of attitude in that particular country.

 

[glenn1]

I don't necessarily agree with the spreading democracy idea, but there is one thing that you have to remember: building a democracy can take a long time. Look at the U.S.: You had settlers coming in the early 1600s. They began to set up their own little town halls and colonial legislatures (later on), but they still took orders from Britain. But when it finally came for a revolution, they built a country more upon the ideals that they had lived with for 150+ years. Countries don't turn into democracies overnight or even in one year if there has never been that kind of attitude in that particular country.

The OP didn't premise his thoughts by saying it's not possible over a specific timeframe. He categorically denied its possibility in the Middle East as a stipulation. If he'd like to clarify his point (maybe English is not his primary language and something got lost in the translation), but as it stands now his position is not that it's a timeline issue, but rather a simple impossibility. To me that's a racist statement on its face since it singles out a particular group of people (in this case Middle Eastern Arabs) as incapable of being able to implement a political structure that has proved adpatable by every other race on earth to at least some extent.

"racism defined broadly as stigmatization of those we perceive as different from us; defined specifically as the doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior."

So Pakistanis are capable of democracy but foul it up (this is all according to the OP), Middle Easterners and Iraqis are incapable of democracy. Ibid op cit supra last paragraph.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I don't necessarily agree with the spreading democracy idea, but there is one thing that you have to remember: building a democracy can take a long time. Look at the U.S.: You had settlers coming in the early 1600s. They began to set up their own little town halls and colonial legislatures (later on), but they still took orders from Britain. But when it finally came for a revolution, they built a country more upon the ideals that they had lived with for 150+ years. Countries don't turn into democracies overnight or even in one year if there has never been that kind of attitude in that particular country.

The OP didn't premise his thoughts by saying it's not possible over a specific timeframe. He categorically denied its possibility in the Middle East as a stipulation. If he'd like to clarify his point (maybe English is not his primary language and something got lost in the translation), but as it stands now his position is not that it's a timeline issue, but rather a simple impossibility. To me that's a racist statement on its face since it singles out a particular group of people (in this case Middle Eastern Arabs) as incapable of being able to implement a political structure that has proved adpatable by every other race on earth to at least some extent.

"racism defined broadly as stigmatization of those we perceive as different from us; defined specifically as the doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior."

So Pakistanis are capable of democracy but foul it up (this is all according to the OP), Middle Easterners and Iraqis are incapable of democracy. Ibid op cit supra last paragraph.

I may have forgotten to addresss the current state and the racist undertone of the post, but the whole timeline thing was to point out that you can't expect fantastic results overnight. Compared to the amount of time the U.S. has been around and how long these other democracies have been around goes to show that it may just take time for things to work out in the M.E. so we should all stop jumping the gun on these perfect democratic states popping up like flowers after a spring rain.

 

[sandorski]

Democracy of whatever type is really the best political form. It gives everyone a way to express their view. This expression minimizes the "need" to take up arms and promotes a more Civil Society. However, everyone must be willing to submit to the Majority decision for it to work. In the US case, and many other democracies, the Majority doesn't Rule in every situation, but merely choose who will lead. This isn't Pure Democracy, but a hybrid that works quite well. Modern Democracies trade Bullets for Ballots which brings about unprecedented Freedom and Peace within the Nations that have it.

 

[5150Joker]

Democracy cannot be achieved if the people are unwilling to fight for it and are educated. The French had their revolution, the United States rebelled against England and Japan/Germany were defeated in a bloody war that left their people disenchanted and open to democracy. The current policy of the United States in "spreading democracy" in the Middle East just serves to antagonize the people there and push them further and further away from democracy and closer to militarism. The people in Iraq are educated enough to implement democracy but the problem there is the friction between the various ethnic and religious groups (shia vs sunni/christians vs kurds) that cannot be solved by an external power. In fact I'd even argue that Iraq itself should have never been created and these different groups should be allowed to form their own nations. In my opinion, the foundations of democracy can only be successfully set in an indigenous nation with educated people that strive for equality - I mention foundation because once it has been set in motion and firmly established, then you can allow the population to diversify like the United States.

The OP is right about Pakistan, democracy has failed that nation due to massive corruption from the top down and the populace there is far too illiterate and poor to care or do anything about it. That nation needs a firm ruling hand just to keep it from falling apart into a failed nation state and so far Musharaff has done a good job. Democracy takes a lot of time to establish, it has to be a slow transition for some nations like Pakistan that are coping with rampant illiteracy and poverty and is not something that can be achieved overnight.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I can not understand the fact why the american people feel that every country should be democracized. Democracy will not work in the ME. It will not work in Iraq. It has not work in Iran or Pakistan.

Why do you beleive that democracy is the right way forward? Infact I have noticed that things under the democratic regimes of Namaz Sharif and Benazeer Bhutto were far worse than those under the military dictatorship of Mushrraf.

Is it only becuase america feels safer with democracized countries?

Democracy is not for uneducated corrupt peoples.

I believe democracy will work in Iraq, and it works in Israel, and works in India...why CAN'T it work?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I can not understand the fact why the american people feel that every country should be democracized. Democracy will not work in the ME. It will not work in Iraq. It has not work in Iran or Pakistan.

Why do you beleive that democracy is the right way forward? Infact I have noticed that things under the democratic regimes of Namaz Sharif and Benazeer Bhutto were far worse than those under the military dictatorship of Mushrraf.

Is it only becuase america feels safer with democracized countries?

Democracy is not for uneducated corrupt peoples.

I believe democracy will work in Iraq, and it works in Israel, and works in India...why CAN'T it work?

It worked in India because prior to partition, the British favored educating Hindus and after partition, India got the vast majority of resources compared to Pakistan. Israel was established by an educated elite so of course it would succeed there (for Jews). Also, Israel can't be considered a true democracy since it maintains that it must have a majority Jewish population - the Arab minority there are actively discriminated against and viewed as a threat to the Jewish majority. The US being a Republic doesn't maintain that there must be a majority of Christians for it to function yet Israel has an active policy of discrmination since it was founded as a religious state for Jews first and foremost.

 

[tommywishbone]

"Why try & spread democracy." Well in the case of the latest attempt, the reason is obvious; the first three lies didn't work so hopefully this lie will work. It's all a lie and it ain't gonna work. The second our War Machine splits, they are all going to kill each other.

Peace in the Middle East via George W Bush? You must be kidding!

 

[glenn1]

"Why try & spread democracy." Well in the case of the latest attempt, the reason is obvious; the first three lies didn't work so hopefully this lie will work. It's all a lie and it ain't gonna work. The second our War Machine splits, they are all going to kill each other.

Peace in the Middle East via George W Bush? You must be kidding!

As opposed to the "peace" which has been going on since WW1 or so? Four wars with Israel, countless civil wars in places like Yemen and Lebanon, the Intifadahs, multiple wars between antogonists as varied as Iraq vs. Iran, Saudi Arabia vs. Yemen, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea, Syria vs. Lebanon, massacres of entire villages by Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel, and others? Suicide bombers, plane hijackings, assassinations at the Olympics, Turks massacring Armenians and Kurds, shall I go on? Yes, all hail the "peace" which Bush delivered us from.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I can not understand the fact why the american people feel that every country should be democracized. Democracy will not work in the ME. It will not work in Iraq. It has not work in Iran or Pakistan.

Why do you beleive that democracy is the right way forward? Infact I have noticed that things under the democratic regimes of Namaz Sharif and Benazeer Bhutto were far worse than those under the military dictatorship of Mushrraf.

Is it only becuase america feels safer with democracized countries?

Democracy is not for uneducated corrupt peoples.

I believe democracy will work in Iraq, and it works in Israel, and works in India...why CAN'T it work?

Here are a few reasons.

Iraq's election result: a divided nation

Iraqi parties seek new election

Fundamentalist Shiites Will Dominate New Parliament

If those aren't enough I'm sure I can find more.

 

[BBond]

Why try and spread democracy?

Because Bush couldn't find any WMD.

 

[WelshBloke]

Nothing wrong with trying to spread democracy.
Its a good thing.

The problem is spreading democracy by force which kind of nulifies the point of it.

 

[glenn1]

Nothing wrong with trying to spread democracy.
Its a good thing.

The problem is spreading democracy by force which kind of nulifies the point of it.

Those in charge of the spreading would use the word "enable" instead of "by force." IMHO, it's pretty clear that the Iraqis dearly wished to be rid of Saddam, I don't think they really had the chance to think much beyond that to what would come after. Now they're pondering that question. I wouldn't expect Iraq to immediately turn into Switzerland. It'll take them time to figure out how to approach things. IMHO, at first we're not going to see a clear-cut that western-style democracy, but that will come in time. South Korea might be a model of what to expect IMHO. It took 40 years after the conclusion of the Korean War for them to completely commit to democracy.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Nothing wrong with trying to spread democracy.
Its a good thing.

The problem is spreading democracy by force which kind of nulifies the point of it.

Those in charge of the spreading would use the word "enable" instead of "by force." IMHO, it's pretty clear that the Iraqis dearly wished to be rid of Saddam, I don't think they really had the chance to think much beyond that to what would come after. Now they're pondering that question. I wouldn't expect Iraq to immediately turn into Switzerland. It'll take them time to figure out how to approach things. IMHO, at first we're not going to see a clear-cut that western-style democracy, but that will come in time. South Korea might be a model of what to expect IMHO. It took 40 years after the conclusion of the Korean War for them to completely commit to democracy.

As in 'I'm enabling you in your choices, as long as you pick one I agree with and if you pick one I don't I'll shoot you in the head'?