Democracy in the Arab world

Iraq and Afghanistan have had elections. Palestine and Israel appear to be more willing to negotiate with one another than in previous years. Syria is being pressured on all sides to withdraw from Lebanon, and the Baathist regime in Syria is in danger of collapsing. Egypt's president announced he would allow opposition in the upcoming election. Saudi Arabia will soon have local elections.

My question is: Do you think that the events of the last two months are a new trend toward democracy in the Middle East? Or are they simply a slight uptick that could reverse at any time?

While I'm optimistic about Lebanon and Palestine, and less pessimistic than before about Iraq...I'm more cautious about the "reforms" in some of the other countries in the area.

 

I think Lebanon and Iran will be fine in the long term, and will probably add some stability to the region.

I'm not really sure about Saudi Arabia or Egypt... Afghanistan is honestly, much further behind in terms of devloped infrastructure then either Iraq or Lebanon, so the wheels of progress will turn much slower, but some good might come from there too.

Good news lately though.

 

Oh for crying out loud.

So the new standard for democracy has become elections that are rigged and forced, leaders elected by threatening their constituents, votes purchased, duplicated, thrown out, women and certain ethnicities disenfranchised, etc etc etc???

Is this an "uptick?" Well, since it's not really democracy (but really just a pathetic sham masquerading as such), it doesn't much matter. Russia had "elections." Come to think of it, even Saddam Hussein had a referendum about his leadership. And 98% of Iraqis turned out for it. Of course, since "democracy" in our own country isn't much better or different than it was in communist Russia, the "democratic" happenings in the middle east probably look just swell to us.

 

The elections weren't rigged at all, the Shiites won the majoritiy which is exactly as the population/vote spanned... it wasn't ideal since the votes were largely on parties of their own ethnic groups.

Women disenfranchised? They got a chance to vote... where do you think we're talking about? Considering women are treated as a commidity in much of the middle east, I don't think you can complain about that.

Of course it's not going to be all gumdrops and rainbows, but how can you not see this as a positive trend?

 

There are plenty of other threads already devoted to blaming America for all the problems of the world. I suggest you use those threads to channel your anger, and leave this one to those of us interested in serious political discussion.

 

I agree with most of that, except I'm not sure that Iran is on the right track. If anything, I think of Iran as being the one country in the area moving in the wrong direction. While it's true that the Iranians hate their government, the nuclear issue may force the western world to compromise with them.

 

First of all, what is democracy? We don't even have democracy in this country. Our elections are rigged and our media is controlled, despite all the rhetoric suggesting otherwise.

What LaughinWillow said about democracy in this country is 100% accurate. What we call democracy, in many aspects, is not a whole heck of a lot different than what you would find in communist Russia. At least it is heading in that direction. Secret arrests and excessive surveillance isn't democracy. It's simply an illusion you are choosing to accept.

And what makes some of these ignoramuses believe that the people in these countries even want democracy, let alone democracy as we know it? It's pretty pathetic that just because Americans support the illusion of democracy, other countries want the same thing. That is such ignorant thinking and very typical of the spoiled American mindset.

What some of you meatheads fail to grasp is that the president has stated that the "war on terror" is a war that will not end in our lifetime. That means we will be waging war after war. If we're not bombing Iraq, we will be bombing Iran, or North Korea, or Syria, or whatever country is seen fit to destroy by those pulling the strings. Do you call this democracy?

I see endless chaos emerging from the Middle East. Most if it is engineered chaos, too. The globalists need to create problems in order to bring about their pre-fabricated solution of murder and imperialism.

 

I meant Iraq. In my defense they sound very similar.

Mccain is trying to talk the president into suspending Russia's G8 status over the Iran nuclear program thing... although to be honest, I don't see the problem with it if the IAEA gets heavily involved in the inspection process and Iran accounts for all fissionable material.

Of course, Iran wants to be a nuclear power, and that would be catastrophic...

And Russia doesn't have a perfect record with nuclear energy either.

So Russia can oversee and design project all it wants, but the IAEA has to be involved.

Iran isn't very stable, and if it were to aquire nuclear weapons, and the country were to collapse, a nuclear weapons would likely go off somewhere. Its already likely that Iran has a nuclear program.

Khamenei is a very hostile presence in the region, but you're right, he does have very little support, which is really surprising for a theocracy.

Iran's still doing much better then The Sudan, where ethnic cleansings and gang rapings are the norm. I wish the UN or the FFL or somebody would get involved in Dafur.

For the most part, the Middle East seems to be making some good progress toward democracy.

 

Yeah, what place do people have to talk about inane conspiraicies... oh wait...

Well before canceliing democracy a little while ago, Russia was making a lot of progress too.

If things were really that bad, you'd have been arested by the federales for being a terrorist years ago.

Who'd want democracy when you can have tyrany eh? Even you have to admit that Lebanon has been a positive turn of events.

Pft, I wouldn't really mind if we installed pupet governments in Iran or Syria either... it'd certainly be a lot better for everyone then the despots they have now. Iran's not far from collapse, and frankly, collapse would probably be for the best.

Endless chaos has already been in the Middle East... since right before the Crusades.It can't get much worse anyway.

 

Right. Because after all, I am sure they want to bring about their own demise by attacking either the US or Israel. That would be a really wise decision on Iran's behalf.

The only way they will use nukes is if they are prevoked into doing so by the US and/or Israel.

Stop believing all the propaganda.

An attack on Iran is literally being PUSHED by the corporate media, and you're mindlessly accepting it by believing everything you're being told.

I guarantee that if ANY country uses a nuke against a western power, it was because they were prevoked and threatened into doing so.

What some of you morons fail to understand is that the more talk of pre-emptively attacking these countries there is, the more open we are to another attack on our own soil.

 

You're probably right that Khamenei wouldn't use a nuclear weapon aginst a western power...

But that doesn't mean that all would be swell if Iran had nuclear weapons. Khamenei has very little influence for an Ayatollah, and after his death, a new regime could come in with hostiles who could sell nukes to anyone on the Middle Eastern market willing to buy them. Hence disasterous.

I'm not worried that I'd be nuked... I'll be fine, but it is likely that it could go off in the region.

We're already pretty open... there are plenty of people who want to attack here if we attack Iran, don't attack Iran, or drop candy canes for all Irans children... nothings changing for us.

But things can change over there.

 

I have been wondering about the problems in the Sudan too. Seems like they kinda got swept under the rug with recent events.

Everyone seems a little too optimistic about events in Lebanon. While I have to admit, I get a little giddy too, we have to remember that underlying currents of Lebanon's civil war ending in 1990, are still present: dispossesed palestinian populations; religious divisions with marionites, shi'ites, sunnis, and druze; Israeli, US, and Syrian funding of partisan groups; and a power structure that is about to collapse under popular protests that can easily slide into mob rule.

That said, the protesters are younger, most don't remember the incredibly brutal cival war, most only remember unity.

I am afraid that Bush is just jumping on the bandwagon here and trying to claim credit for a Syrian withdrawl. I know that occupation has been a pressing issue for some time, but how about the Israeli occupation of Syria's Golan Heights?

Also about the Irainian situation. There is no doubt that if Irain starts to produce nuclear power, that they will also eventually produce nuclear weapons. And why shouldn't they? If we have nuclear weapons, isn't it reasonable to expect that others will want to acquire the same? This is the problem with nuclear weapons. Moreover, in a world where the United States spends some $400,000,000,000 per year on the military, nuclear weapons are quick way to 'level' the playing field (seriously, no pun...). Also, if our policy is to maintain the status quo when it comes to the nuclear weapons club, HOW COME WE HAVEN'T PLACED THE SAME PRESSURE ON S.KOREA AND ISRAEL THAT WE HAVE PLACED ON IRAN AND N. KOREA?

 

Some of the younger crowd here don't remember all the problems in Lebanon before 1990. Many of the young protestors in Lebanon weren't even born yet.

It troubles me that there may be a power vaccuim in Lebanon that could result in the problems it had in the 70s and 80s. I think Bush's call for a complete and immediate withdrawal of Syria is really foolish. It will likely create chaos if it's not done properly in stages. Bush is using a volatile situation for his own political grandstanding.

Based on remarks Bush has made about U.S. troops in Iraq, I expected Bush to call for a Syrian pullout "as soon as possible, but not a moment sooner."

 

Back to the democracy issue, I do think the scramble to set up elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia has been interesting, even if limited.

 

I've brought up that issue also. The stock excuse is that they already have nukes, so we shouldn't be as bothered by it as we are about Iran.

 

Well with Israel perhaps, but it sounds to me like S.Korea is at all almost the same developmental stage as N.Korea. When we found out about this last year, there was initial outcry, then it was dropped. I haven't heard about it since.

Let's face it, the incentive to obtain nuclear enery and/or weapons is huge for any country, and as long as we posess both, we have no moral authority to insist that others cannot.

Every government in the world knows that it is impossible to fight a conventional war, even one of defense, against the United States. The US has the largest economy in the world and as a result, a military with the largest budget (appox. $400,000,000,000). The most cost effective deterent is a nuclear device. Possession of just one atomic bomb--no wait scratch that--just some fissionable material would be enough to deter the United States from attack.

So what incentive do countries, allies and enemies alike, have NOT to develop nuclear weapons? It has significantly improved the military standing and prestige of every country that has done so (eg. China/India/Pakistan), and there have been no lasting consequences for those that continue to do so (S.Korea/N.Korea/Brazil?). In fact, the more a country seems to have nuclear weapons, the more barganing power they hold. If Saddam were smart, he would have played the 'beware of dog card' much more effectively to make the US think he had actually developed a nuclear device.

Without sounding naive, and well aware of the circumstances under which they were built, I think that the development of nuclear weapons were quite possibly the biggest mistake we have ever made.

 

I think a main post 911 concern who is producing nuclear weapons-grade material and where it goes. Even if a country doesn't have a bomb or a means to deliver it, they may have material that can leak out to other groups who might build a bomb and sneak it in to another country. It's easier to build a simple bomb than it is to make the weapons-grade material.

Pakistan has facilities that can make nuclear material, but there doesn't seem to be much concern in the U.S. govt about it, even though there isn't any real democracy in Pakistan right now.

Isn't it strange that you never hear Bush calling for democracy in Pakistan?

Saddam's facilities were all bombed throughout the 90s. He had no nuclear capability, and the U.S. knew it. All Bush could say was that he tried to buy aluminum pipes from China and implant an image of the mushroom cloud rising over America at his state of the union address.

 

As for the statement that the Arab world simply does not want democracy: I used to agree with that, but I've changed my mind over the past few months. The elections in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq - which had extremely high turnout and elected moderate regimes - indicates to me that there IS more support for democracy in the Middle East than common wisdom would indicate. As one columnist recently said, "The Iraqis elected a government, not an insurgency."

 

There are countries that want democracy, but each country is unique and can't be expected to have the same type of government or beliefs that other countries have. It starts to get annoying to hear Bush continually grandstanding all the time about this in an empty fashion. Even Putin got annoyed by it and said that Russia didn't choose democracy to please some other country.

 

We have yet to see how 'moderate' Iraq's elected government will turn out. It certainly wasn't the government the Americans would have wanted. Though perhaps that is testimony to the legitimacy of the elections there.