Why does the U.S. feel it is our need to push our own domestic agenda on other countires ... countries that are 180 degrees opposite of us?

You can say Saddam needed to be dethroned, fine. But does making a democracy automatically get rid of his legacy and the WMD (which we haven't found?)

The liberation, turned occupation, is failing for that one reason: we have completely turned against our "let Iraqi people decide their government" policy and implemented a "it'll be a democracy because that's what we are" policy. And, imagine this folks, no one care about what the U.S. has?

In order to salvage any hope of a peaceful U.S. exit from the Middle Eastern theatre, the U.S. has to let go of that democratic push and really let the Iraqi people run the joint, government-wise.

If I were an Iraqi, I'd feel like this: remember when you were little and at a friends' house and you did something and the kids' mom or dad yelled at you, and you thought, "Man, you're not my parents, I don't have to listen to you?" That's what we're doing to the Iraqi people. Some foreign "elder" has come into their home and told them how to live and what rules to play by. Of course they will resent and fight back.

Where is this headed? Will we decide that the Japanese form of government doesn't suit our needs either and push for democracy there? We've doing it in China, the former Soviet Bloc, Afghanistan, etc. Where does it stop? England, Australia, Canada?

Sometimes I feel very strongly that the U.S. needs to be put back in its place.

i made this point before, but its kinda a catch-22 for the US with the whole democracy thing. assuming their interests are to both install a fully-functioning democracy and to maintain their interests (in any sense), it wont ever work out. one of those will have to give, and it wont be their interests. i think were they to be given an open election theyd probably elect a leader who is riding on an anti-US/anti-occupation platform. theyd use that democracy to set a political path for iraq i doubt the US would be happy with, and their interests would suffer. i think even the idea of democracy in iraq is kinda flawed. probably the only way would be the "iron-fisted junta" way that was predicted years ago

MacArthur wrote the Japanese constitution didn't he?

Originally posted by sickbadthing
MacArthur wrote the Japanese constitution didn't he?

From what I can tell, yes. At least he "guided" its structure.

Originally posted by sppunk


From what I can tell, yes. At least he "guided" its structure.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX102.html

It was rhetorical but the thing is we've already done it to them, under different circumstances, and they were a totally different culture and accepted it differently.

I don't think Iraq and Afghanistan want democracy. I think they see it as being westernized but hey, I'm no expert on people in either of those countries.

Originally posted by sppunk

In order to salvage any hope of a peaceful U.S. exit from the Middle Eastern theatre,

i really don't think the us wants a full exit from the middle east (i ******* the whole Israel thing in this obviously). I genuinely think that the current administration believe that it would harm their world standing to be entirely uninvolved (and look uninterested) in that part of the world. i can't really explain my thinking that well on this, i'm really drunk, but i do believe it. sppunk what do you think? do you believe that the US would be happy to entirely remove themselves from every middle easy issue tommorow if (miraculously) it became possible?

The US won't leave the middle east for one reason and one reason only: oil.

i am going to add my two cents to this...though me not posting much if ever won't lend too much to my credibility...but...

promoting democracy and pushing a US agenda are two wholly seperate things...i have worked for the past four years at an institute in washington dc that helps promote and strengthen democracy in countries that HAVE a political will to become democratic. (www.ndi.org)..yes, we are a US based organization, yes, we receive a large chuck of our funding from USAID but we are not an arm of the US Government- that being said

what is happening in iraq, as well as places like afghanistan and pakistan (two countries that I work on on a daily basis) is that democratic principles and a literal reading of the koran are inherently conflicted...working in post conflict countries, where citizens have been governed under oppressive regimes for most if not all of their lives...just like we hear propaganda about what is going on in other countries - so too are they hearing it about us...

this is all completely different that what the bush and his crew are trying to push in iraq - i do not agree with the original reason to go to war, i do not agree with the way things are presently being handled, i do not agree with the present 'solution'...in all programming that we (my institute ) does, there MUST be an exit strategy, no matter how far in the future it is...Bush want to create a name for himself, he wants to be the war hero he never was - he wants to save the world, but he is far from it...democracy promotion is not about setting your own agenda to create the democratic outcome that you want (so said someone above), but educating, informing and empowering the electorate so that they can decide what government is right for them is the heart of democracy

i will stop for now, as this is all probably way to long and way to erratic and none of you will read it - oh well

-kourtney-

yes, I'm sure the Iraqi citizens would much prefer a dictator to being able to vote.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Nimrod
yes, I'm sure the Iraqi citizens would much prefer a dictator to being able to vote.

:rolleyes:

its not as cut an dry as that, simpleton.

these people -- all they've ever known is oppression. they don't understand fully the benefits of democracy. they are inherently suspicious of anything western. A lot of the kurds, sunnis, arabs, etc. are really not sure if they want democracy because of the Shiite majority. They know democracy pretty much means majority rules, so they naturally assume that this "democracy" means "shiite oppressors". It will be a difficult and long process.

Originally posted by Debaser


its not as cut an dry as that, simpleton.

these people -- all they've ever known is oppression. they don't understand fully the benefits of democracy. they are inherently suspicious of anything western. A lot of the kurds, sunnis, arabs, etc. are really not sure if they want democracy because of the Shiite majority. They know democracy pretty much means majority rules, so they naturally assume that this "democracy" means "shiite oppressors". It will be a difficult and long process.

well said...significant proportions of these populations are confused by what they think democracy is about and what it is ACTUALLY about...perceptions are quite skewed...

and nimrod...if the electorate ina country willfully votes in a dictato, as long as the prcess was completely democratic (free elections, free of political violence and intimidation, vote-buying, etc.) than that is the will of the people - or democracy.

Originally posted by Debaser


its not as cut an dry as that, simpleton.

Must you always resort to personal attacks? It really weakens your viewpoint.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Must you always resort to personal attacks? It really weakens your viewpoint.

yes and not really.

don't be a hypocrite, that rolls eyes icon hurts my feelings.

When people say promoting democracy by aiding and funding opposition groups under dictatorships should be the only way to go about it, I would like to know exactly what kind of time frame that would entail? Do these people really expect pro-democracy factions in dicatorial regimes to ever have any clout in terms of making significant change? Would Saddam or his successor sons ever allowed any pro-democracy uprising or agenda to make its way into the public debate? This all just sounds like pie-in-the-sky to me.

I think Reagan had it right when he funded pro-democracy groups in places like Poland, but that was a completely different scenario. Poland was just a satelitte of Soviet Russia, not the heart of it. You can't expect democratic uprisings to ever flurish under the atmosphere of a Saddam-controlled Baghdad.

I'm not saying democracy by force is the best or only way to go, but it seems like this idea of limited involvement of aiding and encouraging fringe democracy groups in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran etc is really nothing more than kicking the can on down the road. And when things like national security and the future of rogue states providing terrorists with the means to attack the U.S. and its interests, it seems a bit naive to assume the world's dictators are going to suddenly begin paying attention to its pro-democracy factions.

Originally posted by luna_grl
this is all completely different that what the bush and his crew are trying to push in iraq - i do not agree with the original reason to go to war, i do not agree with the way things are presently being handled, i do not agree with the present 'solution'...in all programming that we (my institute ) does, there MUST be an exit strategy, no matter how far in the future it is...Bush want to create a name for himself, he wants to be the war hero he never was - he wants to save the world, but he is far from it...democracy promotion is not about setting your own agenda to create the democratic outcome that you want (so said someone above), but educating, informing and empowering the electorate so that they can decide what government is right for them is the heart of democracy

I agree with this - I think countries need to be ready for democracy to be stable under it and for the process to actually work. Look at Afghanistan - most of the country is still run by feuding warlords, none of which want to give up their power, while the official government has no real power (in fact, I'm sure I heard it mentioned that things were reverting to the old-style oppression even in Kabul itself). And look at the population of Iraq - like it or not, many people support extremist leaders who would become no less autocrats than Saddam would, while many people simply do not understand democracy and the issues surrounding it and the candidates. Removing one government and trying to enforce another type on an unprepared country could result in serious instability.

Question is though, why is democracy seen as so important, when many allies are run by dictators - some of which with bad human rights records? What message does it send, not only to associate with these states but to consider them partners in actions such as that in Iraq?