j-monster Wrote:Furthermore, this Canadian notices that the Iraq "charade" has led to the seeds of democracy being planted in the Middle East....
Is this the good old reverse domino theory? There is actually no evidence for this. It's a
post hoc ergo propter hoc/slippery slope argument that views events in Egypt and Lebanon as a consequence of events in Iraq, without offering any explanation for their linkage.
It's also put into question by a couple of facts that its proponents choose to ignore:
1. Iran has held free and fair elections for many years -- after Israel, it's the most democratic country in the region. The power of the resulting governments is constitutionally restricted, but those governments were moving Iran toward greater democratic reform for several years before the "axis of evil" speech led to an anti-reformist backlash. Doesn't anyone here follow Iranian politics, for Allah's sake? This leads us to three questions:
-- if free and fair elections already existed in Iran, how is the US responsible for "planting the seeds of democracy?" Weren't they already planted?
-- does the slowing of reform in Iran as a reaction to US pressure get counted by people who say things are lookin' up across the region? Or are we only looking on the credit side of the balance sheet?
-- how are free elections in theocratic Iran different from free elections in occupied, and possibly soon-to-be-theocratic Iraq? Do the people really have a full say in either country? And why would elections in Iraq lead to that alleged regional wave of democratic reform, while elections in Iran have led nowhere?
2. The Bush administration actually
resisted free and fair elections in Iraq, in favor of a less representative model intended to limit Shia power. The free and fair elections that Iraq recently saw were the product not of American intentions, but of American concessions to Shia clerics who demanded free and fair elections. Shall we give credit where credit is due, and declare the Ayatollah al-Sistani a hero of democracy?
Love,
yer resident paranoid anti-American conspiracy theorist
Dilly_sAm Wrote:prz Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:things have been the way they are in the middle east for thousands of years...what makes you think it's your nation's place to be running around corruptly policing the globe and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? sure, there's democracy in Iraq, but how long is that gonna last? until the US withdraw their troops?
Hmm, Well lets look back in history. Then we can use Japan and Geramny for examples how long democracy lasts after the US troops leave. Thanks for coming out... :thumb:
Uhh....Japan is still democratic and most of Germany was, and what was Communist is now democratic....
cratch:
That is my point. The US did regime change in both countries and democracy has lasted.
prz Wrote:Dilly_sAm Wrote:prz Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:things have been the way they are in the middle east for thousands of years...what makes you think it's your nation's place to be running around corruptly policing the globe and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? sure, there's democracy in Iraq, but how long is that gonna last? until the US withdraw their troops?
Hmm, Well lets look back in history. Then we can use Japan and Geramny for examples how long democracy lasts after the US troops leave. Thanks for coming out... :thumb:
Uhh....Japan is still democratic and most of Germany was, and what was Communist is now democratic....
cratch:
That is my point. The US did regime change in both countries and democracy has lasted.
Terribly sorry. Thought you were being sarcastic.
prz Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:things have been the way they are in the middle east for thousands of years...what makes you think it's your nation's place to be running around corruptly policing the globe and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? sure, there's democracy in Iraq, but how long is that gonna last? until the US withdraw their troops?
Hmm, Well lets look back in history. Then we can use Japan and Geramny for examples how long democracy lasts after the US troops leave. Thanks for coming out... :thumb:
That's an invalid argument, and you a lawyer, too.... tsk, tsk. First, prove that social and political conditions in Japan and Germany pre-war were similar to conditions in Iraq, or otherwise explain why a similar outcome is likely. :wink:
I'd say it looks like a crap shoot. A stable Iraq following an American withdrawal depends on the ability of the Shias to satisfy Kurdish and Sunni ambitions, doesn't it?
yeah take all the credit for WW2, typical American arrogance :roll:.
Dilly_sAm Wrote:prz Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:things have been the way they are in the middle east for thousands of years...what makes you think it's your nation's place to be running around corruptly policing the globe and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? sure, there's democracy in Iraq, but how long is that gonna last? until the US withdraw their troops?
Hmm, Well lets look back in history. Then we can use Japan and Geramny for examples how long democracy lasts after the US troops leave. Thanks for coming out... :thumb:
Uhh....Japan is still democratic and most of Germany was, and what was Communist is now democratic....
cratch:
Yeah, but there's a little event called World War II that happened because the Japanese and German democracies at the time were fundamentally unsound and easily twisted by meglomaniac, racist leaders. I happen to think Bush's abandonment of "realpolitik" is principled and wise. In certain areas of strategic interest the US is being more forceful in pressing for concrete resolutions and involving the allies and other nations who are willing to help solve the problem and meet some of their strategic interests.
Dilly_sAm Wrote:We aren't the ones who are attempting to create a "missile shield" to protect ourselves from a threat that doesn't exist.
I'm an equal-opportunity nit-picker, so I'm going to point out that this is wrongo. The missile shield does have a purpose, it just ain't talked about in public. That's the upcoming superpower confrontation with China, say, 20 or 30 years on down the road.
Those familiar with US nuclear policy over the years (recommended reading: War, by Gwynne Dyer, the new edition) might suggest that this is a very good reason not to support the missile shield. Unless they actually thought said policy is sane, that is....
But in any case, that's what it's really all about. North Korean nukes are just a convenient rationale ... after all, the president can't really say this in public for obvious diplomatic reasons. "We're just lookin' to get a head start in the ol' arms race" wouldn't play well with the Chinese (although they ain't dumb, either).
This raises interesting questions regarding US policy towards North Korea: is it convenient in a realpolitik sense for the US to allow the North Koreans to develop a minimum deterrent nuclear capability?
(Yes, this string of posts is evidence that I'm not working on "Gord....")
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:prz Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:things have been the way they are in the middle east for thousands of years...what makes you think it's your nation's place to be running around corruptly policing the globe and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? sure, there's democracy in Iraq, but how long is that gonna last? until the US withdraw their troops?
Hmm, Well lets look back in history. Then we can use Japan and Geramny for examples how long democracy lasts after the US troops leave. Thanks for coming out... :thumb:
That's an invalid argument, and you a lawyer, too.... tsk, tsk. First, prove that social and political conditions in Japan and Germany pre-war were similar to conditions in Iraq, or otherwise explain why a similar outcome is likely. :wink:
I'd say it looks like a crap shoot. A stable Iraq following an American withdrawal depends on the ability of the Shias to satisfy Kurdish and Sunni ambitions, doesn't it?
I dont think it is an invalid argument. The US has done it in the past and could do it again. Is it going to be a stressful process or even fail? Maybe, but there is a good chance things will work out down the road.
Changing a country takes alot of time. I could be wrong on this, but didnt the US control Japan under McArthur for 5 years before handing over power? The US has been running Iraq for 2 years. I just think more time has to be given before stating its a failure.
We sure know the UN's record on this. Just ask the people of East Timor...
I am in total agreement with Skippy here. I doubt that the transfer of world dominance will be done through bloodshed, however. China is the up and coming superpower. However, once China surpasses the US economically, the rest is just details.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:This raises interesting questions regarding US policy towards North Korea: is it convenient in a realpolitik sense for the US to allow the North Koreans to develop a minimum deterrent nuclear capability?
In a realpolitik sense, and in a strategic sense, no. The Americans have the capability to quash the North Koreans, and it seems that a nip in the bud of the nuclear program would solve a lot of GW's problems. But perhaps they are keeping the North Koreans around for the aforementioned showdown with the Chinese. The American-led unification of the Koreas in future years would not only give the US the moral upper hand in the eyes of the world, but a great launch pad into China (one only has to hearken back to McArthur's desires in the Korean War, and the fact that he was within a few artillery shots of Beijing). But we must take into consideration the irrationality of Kim Jong-Il. Who would he pick, as a "communist", China (close, economically strong, held them at arm's length for the past quarter century) or the US (distant, econmically dominant, gave them hell for the past quarter century)?
Who is to say a minimum deterrent capability wouldn't be used offensively against South Korea with prodding from the Chinese?
prz Wrote:I dont think it is an invalid argument. The US has done it in the past and could do it again...
Well, that's not an invalid argument. But to say that Germany and Japan represent some sort of trend would be.
Neither Germany nor Japan had heavily armed ethnic factions, one of which (Kurds) had a functional government of its own prior to the war's end. Nor did they have active insurgencies following war's end. (We forgot to mention the success of American efforts in Vietnam.... oops. Sarcasm.)
I'm not optimistic that the US can do much for Iraqi democracy, frankly. The Iraqi Shiites will be the key players. So far, they are being pretty sensible.
fingernailsonhull Wrote:I am in total agreement with Skippy here. I doubt that the transfer of world dominance will be done through bloodshed, however.
Well, one would hope. War between nuclear-armed superpowers isn't an alternative I'm keen on exploring -- and I'm opposed to missile defence for that reason. The aim is to make a flexible first-strike doctrine workable.
The confrontation between the US and USSR was the first such confrontation in centuries to end without a war. Mutual assured destruction may well have had a lot to do with that.
Yikes.
hock:
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:prz Wrote:I dont think it is an invalid argument. The US has done it in the past and could do it again...
Well, that's not an invalid argument. But to say that Germany and Japan represent some sort of trend would be.
Neither Germany nor Japan had heavily armed ethnic factions, one of which (Kurds) had a functional government of its own prior to the war's end. Nor did they have active insurgencies following war's end. (We forgot to mention the success of American efforts in Vietnam.... oops. Sarcasm.)
I'm not optimistic that the US can do much for Iraqi democracy, frankly. The Iraqi Shiites will be the key players. So far, they are being pretty sensible.
Well, Vietnam I agree was a disaster but the US never did have control of the country. But I do find it funny that after Vietnam fought so hard against the Americans and everything the West stood for saw themselves in the late 1990s slowly turn to democratic principles and capitalism. I believe Vietnam has a stock market now.
So MAD will save us all again in US vs. China?
I'm not too sure I'm willing to take that bet....
prz Wrote:Well, Vietnam I agree was a disaster but the US never did have control of the country.
Are the Americans actually in control of Iraq? Their control is looking pretty tenuous.
The outcome in Vietnam was more or less inevitable -- not only the US defeat, but the move away from Communism. Communism doesn't really work very well, as it turns out ... people like democracy.
Look at fascist, proto-fascist, and Marxist regimes across central and south America. They more or less lasted only as long as superpower interference propped them up. So I'd say I'm optimistic for Iraq in the very long term.
I'll make ya a bet, and we'll settle up in the nursing home.
